On September 29, the U.S. Department of State reduced its diplomatic presence at its Embassy in Havana, ordering the departure of non-emergency U.S. staff; and it warned U.S. citizens that they should not travel to Cuba.  The stated reason for these measures is a pattern of acoustic attacks directed against U.S. Embassy employees in Havana, which allegedly began in November 2016.  The U.S. claims that that those affected “have exhibited a range of physical symptoms including ear complaints and hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue, cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping.”

       The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations maintains that Cuba fully complies with international norms concerning the physical safety of foreign diplomatic staff in its territory categorically; it denies any responsibility in the affair, and it rejects the U.S. decisions as not founded on evidence. It further maintains that the U.S. Embassy has not provided sufficient details concerning the alleged incidents, in spite of repeated Cuban requests for more information; that the Cuban committee formed to investigate the affair has been denied access to the alleged victims and the doctors who examined them; that the U.S. Embassy in many cases delayed for months the reporting of the incidents, thus undermining the possibility of a serious investigation; and that the Cuban committee has been denied the possibility for interchange with specialists in this type of attack, concerning which Cuba possesses little knowledge.  The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations insists that it has not been provided a shred of evidence that the acoustic attacks have occurred, nor have been identified possible perpetrators with motives or means for such attacks.  Moreover, the Cuban journalist Sergio Alejandro Gómez cites international specialists who assert that a sophisticated “sonic weapon” would not produce the symptoms described; nor could it select some victims in a room, sparing others, as is alleged.  

     On October 3, the U.S. Department of State also ordered the departure from the United States of fifteen members of the Cuban embassy in Washington.  Bruno Rodriquez, Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, asserts that the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from Washington has nothing to do with the supposed concern of the U.S. government for its diplomatic staff in Cuba.  He maintains that the October 3 decision shows the U.S. political motivation behind the entire affair.

       There can be no reasonable doubt that Cuba has no interest in attacking the U.S. diplomatic staff, or in tolerating such attacks by third parties.  Cuba desires the normalization of relations between the two countries, and any such attacks, if exposed, would seriously undermine this goal.  Moreover, the exposure of any attacks against foreign diplomats in Cuba would place Cuban diplomatic staff in other countries at risk.  Cuba insists on respect for the 1961 Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in part, because revolutionary Cuba for many years has been victimized by assassinations, kidnappings, and attacks against its diplomatic staff.  

       The interest of the Cuban government in respect for international laws and rules can be understood in a more general form.  Cuban foreign policy since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution has been based on full respect for international norms and laws, including such principles as the equality and sovereignty of all nations, the non-interference in the affairs of nations, and the right of all nations and peoples to development and to self-determination.  Such a policy is fully consistent with the revolutionary goals of the Cuban government, inasmuch as it is has been the neocolonial global powers that consistently have interfered in the affairs of other nations, in violation of their sovereignty, in pursuit of particular economic and political interests.  If fundamental international principles were to guide the world-system, popular revolutionary governments would be able to protect their natural and human resources and the sovereignty of their nations, without being subjected to economic sanctions, political interference, military interventions, and ideological attacks.  In such a world, popular revolutions have political space. 

     Driven by its revolutionary goal of contributing to the creation of a world-system guided by norms and values that have been proclaimed formally, but not respected in practice, Cuba has a long history of full respect for international norms.  On the other hand, the United States has a long history of distorting facts in order to attain political and economic goals.  This hypocritical disrespect for proclaimed values has defined U.S. foreign policy since the end of the nineteenth century, when it entered the stage of imperialism; and it has been more blatant since the 1980s, as the world-system entered sustained structural crisis and the United States began a commercial and economic decline.  For anyone with historical consciousness of this U.S. legacy of deceit, it is difficult to believe the U.S. allegations against Cuba, when it provides no evidence.

       The U.S. allegations are dismissed completely and universally in Cuba, not only by the government but also among the people, among whom there is consciousness of revolutionary Cuba’s dignified and exemplary behavior with respect to international norms as well as awareness of the U.S. history of deceit and distortion in order to defend economic and political interests.  But in the United States, where there is less historical and political consciousness, the allegations of the U.S. government may have some ideological weight.  The allegations may have credibility, as a result of misconceptions of Cuba as undemocratic and controlled from above; and as a result of generalized popular fear in the USA of possible high-tech forms of terrorism, always portrayed in movies as in the hands of some unreasonable alien or foreign force.  

      The Trump administration may be attempting to reduce travel to Cuba, not by establishing further administrative and legal restrictions, but by provoking fear of travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens.  If successful, the strategy could lay the groundwork for further sanctions against Cuba, on the fallacious grounds that it is terrorist nation.  For the people of the United States, the best defense against this political and ideological maneuver is to develop and disseminate a solid understanding of what the Cuban Revolution really is.

       For a greater understanding of the Cuban Revolution, please see my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.

      Socialist Cuba, in contrast to capitalist societies, is well prepared to respond to meteorological events.  It has developed structures of popular participation, such as popular councils, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, student organizations, and the Union of Communist Youth.  Accordingly, mechanisms are in place for the initiation, coordinated by the Councils of Defense of each province, of any necessary collective action, whether it be evacuation, repair of electric lines, clean-up of fallen trees and branches, repair of housing, or the rehabilitation of streets, public areas, and centers or production. Socialist Cuba has developed a tradition of solidarity, such that brigades are mobilized rapidly, including specialists in relevant technical areas as well as general voluntary labor.  It has educated the people concerning the necessary function of the state in the economy and society, standing in contrast to the post-1980 ideological attack on the state in the capitalist societies of the North.  As a result, in Cuba there has not been the reduction or elimination of state departments and bureaus that have importance for responding to “natural disasters.”  It has invested in science, particularly a form of science that responds to the needs of the nation and the people; thus, the system is well prepared, with the prior dissemination of information and the taking of necessary preventive measures.  As a dimension of this, Cuba has begun to implement strategies for a long-term response to the impact of global warming, including rising sea levels and more frequent and stronger storms.  

     The Cuban capacity for an organized, scientifically informed, and integrated response to hurricanes has been amply and impressively evident in the prelude and aftermath of Hurricane Irma, which ravaged the Cuban archipelago for seventy-two hours, from the morning of September 8 to the afternoon of September 10.  Cuba was hard hit by Irma, but it was not unprepared or taken by surprise.

         Although nearly the entire nation was affected, Irma struck especially the northern coast of the central provinces.  In the village of Isabela de Sagua, for example, some 82% of the 577 houses suffered some kind of serious damage, including 158 that were destroyed.  Along the northern coast, high winds and flooding damaged banana, rice, sugar, and yucca crops and egg production.  Moreover, as a result of damage to several thermoelectric centers, the generation of electricity across the nations was cut to virtually zero.  In addition, there was extensive seawater flooding of the low-level coastal zone of the city of Havana, requiring the evacuation of these areas, including several high-priced international tourist hotels.  In the fourteen municipalities that comprise the Province of the City of Havana, more than 4000 houses were damaged, including 157 houses destroyed and more than 2300 with roofs totally or partially destroyed.

      However, with organization and spirit, the recovery is proceeding rapidly.  A well-conceived restauration plan, involving the generation of electricity through more than 2700 generators distributed throughout the country, restored the national generating capacity to 100% of demand within a week, although 3.7% of Cuban houses remained without the possibility to connect electricity as of September 19.  Health services and patients were relocated when necessary, and all services were quickly restored.  Schools and educational centers have been reopened rapidly.  By Monday, September 17, 9,833 primary schools had reopened, representing 92.4% of the total; some 119 of these institutions were relocated to alternative buildings in order to facilitate their reopening.  

     Priority has been given to tourism, because of its importance to the Cuban economy, and because of a desire to ensure that international guests are safe and not unnecessarily inconvenienced.  On September 5, there were 51,807 international tourists in the country, 88% of them (45,827) on the north coast, and 10,626 in hotels on the keys off the northern coast.  The more than ten thousand tourists on the keys were evacuated, 5,134 to hotels in Havana and Veradero, while 5,491 Canadians were evacuated to their country by their tour operators. Havana hotels in low-lying areas near the sea also were evacuated. The Cuban hotel infrastructure, however, had limited damage.  No hotel had structural damage; some experienced damage to glass, false roofs, and light constructions.  The great majority of evacuated hotels had service fully restored in a few days.  Full restoration of the tourist sector is a high priority.  The Minister of Tourism has “guaranteed” that all hotels will be fully operating and the tourist sector will have full service available by the beginning of the tourist high season in November.

     With respect to agriculture, plans for immediate re-seeding, with the necessary technical support to the agricultural cooperatives, are being developed and implemented.  In regard to housing, the government announced on September 17 that the state will pay for fifty percent of the costs of materials for repair of houses totally or partially destroyed; that those with damage to housing can apply for bank credit for repairs, with low rates of interest and long-term payment; and that those with insufficient income to manage such costs can apply for additional subsidies.  The government is financing the housing reconstruction plan through the use of a reserve fund set aside for this purpose, the transfer of funds from other budgetary categories, and bank loans.  

    During and in the aftermath of the event, Cuban television has devoted more than two hours of coverage each evening to the damage caused by the storm, the integrated and well-organized response, and the progress being made in the recovery stage.  Similarly, daily newspapers are for the most part devoted to the storm and the response of the nation.  The issue is framed as a response of a revolutionary government and revolutionary people, who confront Irma with the same commitment, intelligence, responsibility, and optimism with which they have confronted other challenges in the past and present.

     In observing the Cuban reaction to Irma, one could make the interpretation that the Cuban socialist project is in transition from direction by charismatic authority to leadership by a vanguard political party (see various posts in the category Charismatic Leaders).  The transition has been in preparation since the 1960s, when the revolution began to develop the Cuban Communist Party as a vanguard political party that would function as the institutionalization of the charismatic authority of Fidel.  In past hurricanes, Fidel was present everywhere, meeting with the people, asking them about the conditions, and exhorting them to action.  In contrast, in the response to Irma, Raúl has not been present to the same degree.  To be sure, he issued a calling to the people as the hurricane hit, as cited above, and he has chaired meetings of high officials of the government and the party in order to assess priorities and strategies.  But it has been the Party leadership that has been everywhere present among the people, supporting and calling the people in all of the places that have faced difficult challenges. The leadership has not announced such a move from personal charismatic leadership to collective vanguard leadership, nor has it been the subject of commentary by Cuban news commentators and analysts.  It is a personal observation of mine, which I make as an observer of the Cuban revolutionary project and its evolution.

     The impressive response to Irma is a consequence of the development by the socialist revolution of structures of popular democracy.  In this regard, Cuba has much to teach the world: the forming of structures of popular power, so that political power is in the hands of delegates nominated by the people in neighborhood assemblies and elected by the people in local elections; the development of mass organizations, so that the people are organized permanently in places of work and study and in neighborhoods; the forging of an understanding of the necessary role of the state in economic and social development, so that the state and its ministries are present to provide necessary support in all emergencies; and the development of scientific knowledge and structures that are shaped by the needs of the nation and the people.  By and large, the “Left” in the North appreciates that Cuba has a capacity to respond well to meteorological events, and that it has excellent systems of health and education.  But many do not appreciate that the foundation of these gains is the Cuban system of popular democracy, which has emerged as a result of a historic process, in which a revolutionary leadership took political power from a national bourgeoisie, totally subordinated to international capital, and placed political power in the hands of delegates of the people.

      For more reflection on the Cuban Revolution and its meaning of the context of a sustained global crisis, see my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.

     In recent days, Cuban television has broadcast news coverage of commemorations of the anniversary of the birth of Fidel, in Cuba and the world.  The media attention has included extensive interviews with Cuban academics, speaking on the life and teachings of Fidel.  The great historic leader of the Cuban Revolution was born ninety-one years ago today, on August 13, 1926.  He died on November 25, 2016, at the age of 90.

     Fidel Castro Ruz emerged as an important leader of the Cuban Revolution on July 26, 1953, when he led 126 youth in an armed attack of the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba.  The purpose of the attack was to attain arms for the launching of a guerrilla struggle in the nearby mountains.  If the assailants had succeeded in taking the barracks, they would have proclaimed revolutionary laws, including agrarian reform, profit sharing for workers and employees, confiscation of properties fraudulently acquired, and reestablishment of the Constitution of 1940.

      In deciding to organize the Moncada attack, Fidel draw upon a sensitive understanding of Cuban political culture.  It had been twenty years since the collapse of the revolutionary government of 100 days. From 1933 to 1953, revolutionary hopes and the soul of the nation remained alive, as a result of an intellectual class whose works proclaimed an ethical attitude in the face of government corruption. However, by 1953, there had emerged a profound frustration and a belief that an ethical attitude in response to the corrupt political establishment was not enough.  The people yearned for a move beyond attitude to action.  Their yearnings were fulfilled by the Moncada attack, which they perceived as a heroic action, inasmuch as 70 of the young assailants were killed.  The Moncada attack galvanized the people, and it placed Fidel at the head of a new stage in the Cuban Revolution.       
      
     As the revolution unfolded, Fidel demonstrated an understanding of the importance of unity in the struggle and a capacity to forge unification.  Four historic moments stand out in this regard.  The first was the uniting of the popular sectors and anti-Batista political forces in a unified political struggle to bring down the dictator.  Since 1953, Fidel had called all of the people to the struggle, whether they be agricultural workers, industrial workers, professionals, businesspersons, or unemployed; and he brought them on board with a politically intelligent platform that responded to the grievances of the various sectors of the people.  When the revolution took power on January 1, 1959, Fidel included bourgeois and pro-imperialist members of the Cuban bourgeoisie in the initial revolutionary government, with the intention of keeping the anti-Batista coalition intact until the revolutionary leadership was ready for the inevitable break with the reformist and conservative opposition to Batista.

     The rupture of the anti-Batista coalition came on May 17, 1959, with the signing of the Agrarian Reform Law.  Constituting a decisive break with the neocolonial order, the Agrarian Reform Law defined the Cuban Revolution as a radical revolutionary project, determined to affect a social transformation within the nation as well as a necessary restructuring of global structures that had defined Cuba’s role as a supplier of cheap raw materials and a purchaser of surplus manufacturing goods.  With this historic rupture, the unification of the revolutionary forces became indispensable.  Fidel maintained the support of the various popular sectors through decisive action by the revolutionary government, including agrarian reform, protection of employment, confiscation of property of persons associated with the Batista regime, intervention in foreign-owned utility companies that imposed exorbitant prices, and reduction in housing rents, all steps taken in 1959; and the nationalization of companies, both national and foreign-owned, in 1960.  At the same time, Fidel began to work on the unification of the revolutionary organizations, including the 26 of July Movement, created and led by Fidel; the March 13 Revolutionary Directory, a student organization; and the Popular Socialist Party (PSP), the old communist party.  These efforts culminated in the formation of a new Communist Party of Cuba in 1965, a political structure designed to formulate the necessary direction of the revolution, making recommendations to assemblies of popular power.

      The third historic moment in which Fidel proclaimed and sought to form a necessary political unity came in the period 1979 to 1983, when Cuba served as president of the Non-Aligned Movement.  Fidel called for the unity of the governments, movements, and peoples of the Third World, for the purpose of cooperation in the construction of a New International Economic Order, a project approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1974.  At the 1983 Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in New Delhi, with the global powers turning to the imposition of the neoliberal project on the governments of the Third World, the wisdom of Fidel did not prevail.  But the voice of Fidel remained as an important prophetic proclamation, never forgotten by the neocolonized and excluded peoples of the earth.

      Fidel again played an important unifying role, calling upon the unity of the Latin American anti-imperialist movements, during the post-1994 renewal of the Latin America popular movements.  With Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the head of the progressive Workers’ Party in Brazil, Fidel had initiated in 1990 the birth of the Sao Paulo Forum, an organization of Latin American social movements and political parties of the Left.  And in 2004, with Hugo Chávez, he formed the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), which was the first decisive step in a process of Latin American unity, culminating in the formation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2010. CELAC consists of the governments of the 33 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the revolutionary government of Cuba has played a central role in its initial stages of development.  

     The unifying internationalist vision of Fidel sees the necessity of the unity of anti-imperialist forces, unity in defense of the sovereignty of the neocolonized nations, including cooperation between reformist and revolutionary tendencies, united on a foundation of common goals and with respect for differences.  Here it is useful to distinguish between reform from above and reform from below.  Reform from above is conceived by the powerful, and it either (1) supports concessions to the popular sectors in order to pacify them, deliberately deceiving the people into thinking that it seeks fundamental change; or (2) fails to envision the fundamental structural changes that are necessary to carry out its vision of reform.  In contrast, reform from below seeks long-term structural transformations, but it seeks changes that are limited in the short term, as a necessary political strategy in the existing conditions. The difference between revolution and reform from below is not great, taking into account that a triumphant revolution cannot transform conditions overnight and must move step-by-step.   Cooperation between revolution and reform from below in many cases is possible and necessary.  In accordance with this understanding, Fidel discerned the political advisability of cooperation between anti-imperialist and anti-neocolonial political tendencies of Latin America and the Third World. He was in his final years an important voice calling for the necessary unity of Latin America and the Third World, without rejecting the possibility of North-South cooperation, made necessary by global economic, political, and ecological conditions.

      The understanding of Fidel emerged in the context of political action.  Seeking to accomplish political goals in defense of the popular sectors and of national sovereignty, he formulated understandings of the political, economic, cultural, and ideological context in which such goals had to be attained.  He formulated his theory of a political party, for example, in the context of seeking to form a political party that would guide the nation.  Likewise, he formulated his understanding of neocolonial dynamics in the context of seeking to lead a nation in the defense of its sovereignty, in a world-system that is organized to deny the sovereignty of the nations.  Fidel’s understanding, therefore, profoundly illustrates the relation between theory and practice.

      Fidel understood the need to form a vanguard political party.  As early as 1961, Fidel was speaking of the importance of replacing the direction of the revolution by one person, necessary up to that time, with a collective leadership of a vanguard political party.  This process began in the 1960s with the formation of the Cuban Communist Party.  It evolved for the next four decades, during which time the Party grew in the capacities of its members, but it was constrained by the unavoidable charismatic presence of Fidel.  The process advanced considerably from 2009 to 2016, as a consequence of Fidel’s retirement, for reasons of health.  Today, the revolutionary project is direct by Raúl Castro, who also possesses charismatic authority.  But Raúl has encouraged the increasing leadership of the Party in the revolutionary process, such that the structures of a revolutionary project directed by a vanguard political party are today prepared. 

     Prior to my first arrival in Cuba in 1993, I could not avoid the influence of the political culture and the academic assumptions of the United States, in spite of my persistent commitment to seeking understanding through encounter with the Third World.  Accordingly, I had believed that underlying social forces shape revolutionary processes.  However, as I encountered revolutionary Cuba and studied the speeches of Fidel, I arrived to understand that his capacity to understand is so exceptional that it defies explanation.  And I came to appreciate that many Cubans had discerned this, and thus their own revolutionary commitment was expressed as a commitment to the leadership of Fidel, and today, to the teachings of Fidel.

     Stimulated by the example of Fidel and Cuba, as I studied revolutions in other nations, I could not avoid seeing the importance of charismatic leadership in revolutionary processes.  The paradigmatic examples are Fidel, Ho and Mao.  In their nations today, vanguard political parties lead their nations and educate the people, forging a scientifically based consensus among the people, thus avoiding the politically motivated conflicts that make representative democracies dysfunctional.  Other charismatic leaders have emerged in Latin America today: Chávez in Venezuela, Evo in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.  Although these revolutionary processes are in the early stages in their development, they have played a leading role in transforming the political reality of Latin America and in cooperating with Cuba, China and Vietnam in taking important steps toward the construction of a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system.

     We intellectuals of the North must celebrate the charismatic leaders of the Third World.  We ought to study their works and learn from their teachings, with the goal of elevating the historical, global, and revolutionary consciousness of our peoples.  From such a dynamic of popular education, charismatic leaders will emerge to forge policies that break with the legacy of imperialism, thus establishing the foundation for a more just and democratic world.

     Further reflections on these themes can be found in various posts in the categories Cuban History, Cuba Today, and Charismatic Leaders. These themes also are discussed in my forthcoming book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.

Posted June 21, 2017

     As we have seen (“Trump’s speech on Cuba” 6/17/2017), immediately following Donald Trump’s June 16 speech on Cuba, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba issued a declaration.  It affirms that Cuba remains open to negotiations with the United States, on a basis of mutual respect, but that it will not compromise its sovereignty in order to improve relations with the United States.  Any changes in the Cuban political-economic system, regularly occurring as its socialism evolves, are made by Cuba as a sovereign nation, and they never will be made because of conditions established by a foreign power.

     At a press conference on June 19, Bruno Rodríguez, Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, read a prepared statement.  Rodríguez is a dignified man with a conservative manner, always careful in his choice of words.  However, anger could be discerned as he denounced the June 16 “show,” which he characterized as a grotesque spectacle.  He observed that Trump was surrounded by “old henchmen and thieves of the Batista dictatorship, mercenaries of the Bay of Pigs brigade, and terrorists.”  Among those who were at Trump’s side were: a terrorist detained in California in 1995 with an arsenal of arms, who was involved in an attempt against Fidel Castro; a member of an armed group that infiltrated Cuba in 1974; and a third who committed terrorist acts of piracy against Cuban fisherman between 1972 and 1975.  Rodríguez noted that among those with Trump was the wife of a Batista dictatorship torturer, who had subsequently financed a series of bombings in Cuban tourist facilities in 1997.  “I strongly protest before the government of the United States this . . . offense to the Cuban people, to the world, and to the victims of terrorism everywhere.”   

     Rodríguez also noted that the show included frequent mention of “the father of an out-of-tune violinist who played the U.S. national anthem.”  He pointed out that Trump omitted mention of the fact that Capitan Bonifacio Haza had murdered the Cuban youths Carlos Díaz and Orlando Carvajal in the last days of the Batista dictatorship; and that Haza had participated in the assassinations of the well-known revolutionary organizer and activist Frank País, his comrade in struggle Raúl Pujol, and in a later moment, his younger brother Josué País.  

     Rodríguez maintained that the measures announced by Trump are a backward step in U.S.-Cuban relations.  Further, he expects that they will adversely affect U.S.-Latin American and Caribbean relations, and that they will seriously damage the credibility of U.S. foreign policy. 

     Rodríguez reaffirmed Cuban willingness to dialogue, but on a basis of mutual respect.  “I reiterate the will of Cuba to continue respectful dialogue and cooperation in areas of mutual interest and to negotiate pending matters with the United States, on the basis of equality and absolute respect to our independence and sovereignty.”

     He maintained that Cuban sovereignty must be respected.  “Cuba will not make concessions inherent to its sovereignty and independence; it will not negotiate its principles nor accept conditions, as it never has, never, throughout the history of the Revolution.”  He made reference to the recent discussion among the Cuban people and the Communist Party of Cuba of a new economic and social model. With respect to any such internal discussions, Rodriquez insisted that “any necessary changes in Cuba will be decided in a sovereign manner by the Cuban people, and only the Cuban people, as always has been done.  We do not ask anyone’s opinion, nor do we ask anyone for permission.”

      In the subsequent taking of questions from the press, Rodríguez was asked, by a representative of Prensa Latina, why Cuba continues with its posture of willingness to dialogue, when there is not a counterpart disposed to dialogue.  The Minister responded:

​      The National Secretariat of the Cuban Federation of Workers (CTC for its initials in Spanish) also issued a declaration.  Some 99% of Cuban workers, including professional workers like medical doctors and university professors, are members of CTC, and the workers elect the leaders of CTC at local, provincial and national levels.  CTC is a self-financing non-governmental organization, but it is not anti-governmental, as a result of the fact that the government actively supports the rights of workers in all occupations and professions, including the right to organize.  The elected leaders of Cuban workers declared:

​     At the same time, the Secretariat of the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba has called upon North American writers, artists, academics and friends of Cuban culture to denounce the new policy of Trump as well as the brutal blockade that Cuba has suffered for nearly sixty years.

Posted June 28, 2017

     In his June 16 speech in Miami announcing a new Cuba policy, and in the “National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba” issued on the same date, President Donald Trump made a number of comments that distort Cuban reality.  

     Trump described Cuba as ruled by a brutal communist regime that suppresses freedom and human rights, denies democracy and free enterprise, arbitrarily arrests dissidents and peaceful protestors, prosecutes religious practices, does not recognize alternative political parties and does not have elections.  He further maintained that the military forces and intelligence and security services are at the core of the regime.  

     In these commentaries, the President of the United States displayed a stunning ignorance of the nation concerning which he was announcing policy.  In fact, the Cuban Revolution has developed an alternative system of democracy, a system of popular democracy, structurally different from representative democracy (see “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context”).  Cuba developed the alternative system as a result of its adverse experiences with representative democracy during the U.S.-dominated neocolonial republic from 1902 to 1959.  It found that democracy “made in the U.S.A.” was unable to protect the sovereignty of the nation or to respond to the social and economic needs of the great majority.  So after the triumph of the revolution, it worked on developing an alternative system of democracy, which was established in the Constitution of 1976, a decade in which the U.S.A.-Cuba conflict had abated and in which the revolution institutionalized a number of revolutionary practices.  

     The Cuban system of popular democracy is developed on a foundation of secret and direct elections in voting districts of 1000 to 1500 voters, which elect delegates to 169 local assemblies throughout the nation.  The delegates are elected from among two or more candidates who are nominated directly by the citizens in a series of neighborhood assemblies.  The elected delegates to the local assemblies in turn elect the delegates to the fifteen provincial assemblies as well as the deputies to the National Assembly of Popular Power, which then elects the thirty-one members of the Council of State (the executive branch).  The ministries of the armed forces and the interior (security and intelligence) are only two of various ministries in the executive branch, and they are under the jurisdiction of the Council of State and the National Assembly.

     The electoral process, from nomination to election, occurs without the participation of political parties, without political campaigns, and without campaign financing.  All citizens 16 years of age or older are eligible to vote, and the participation rate is in excess of 90%.  All citizens are eligible to be delegates and deputies, regardless of ideology or political party affiliation.  In the nomination process, qualities of the candidates are discussed, rather than issues.  Issues are discussed in ongoing meetings of the people in neighborhoods and places of work and study, separately from the electoral process. People are entirely free to express their views on a variety of subjects, although counterrevolutionary views are so contrary to the prevailing popular consciousness that open expression of them generally leads to a decline in influence among fellow citizens.  And as in any society, no one has the right to engage in violent protest, nor the right to engage in disruptive behavior under the employment of representatives of a foreign power.

      Trump spoke of “dissidents,” but one doubts that he or any of his advisors had previously read an interesting book on the “dissidents,” in spite of the fact that an English translation is available.  The book consists of interviews of Cuban agents who had infiltrated counterrevolutionary groups in Cuba.  The agents describe the tendencies in the groups toward: using connections with the United States as a basis for improving personal economic situation; very limited influence among the people, who generally view them as U.S. servants; deliberating fabricating false news stories that damage the image of Cuba; and engaging in violent and illegal activities.  The book exposes the weak and decadent character of Cuban political dissidents.

     Trump spoke of the Cuban dissidents in such terms that, from the Cuban perspective, it appeared that he was converting terrorists into heroes. This aspect of the June 16 “show” has provoked the most indignation in Cuba.  Cuban television news has been presenting news stories concerning specific persons who were lauded by Trump, explaining who these people are.  For example, one woman praised by Trump was identified in Cuban news as involved in the “banditry” in the mountains of south-central and western Cuban from 1959 to 1965.   The story of the banditry is little known in the United States, but far from forgotten in Cuba.  The bandits were operating as counterrevolutionary guerrillas, with logistical and financial support from the CIA. But a guerrilla troop cannot function without the support of the locals, and these counterrevolutionary forces did not have popular support.  So they became bandits, and their activities included murdering civilians, including peasants as well as young teachers in the revolutionary literacy program in the mountains.  Cuban scholars maintain that nearly 200 people were killed during the six-year campaign, which was brought to an end by revolutionary militias who tracked down the gangs and disabled them.  The woman embraced by Trump was tried in Cuban courts for her involvement in these activities, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison, serving 14 years before being released.  She subsequently emigrated to the United States, and attained some fame as an “independent journalist” in opposition to the Cuban government. Cuban journalists say that she received payment in excess of fifty thousand dollars for writing articles defaming the five Cuban security agents who had infiltrated counterrevolutionary terrorist groups in Miami. (The five subsequently became internationally renowned political prisoners in the United States before being released by Obama as part of the normalization of relations).  Whereas Trump referred to this “independent journalist” as an ex-political prisoner, Cuban journalists and government officials view her as an ex-terrorist who today receives payment for disseminating false information about her native country.  

     Trump believes that Cuba is not alone in its alleged shortcomings, for he declared that “communism has destroyed every single nation where it has ever been tried.”  But he has revealed no understanding of what communism is, especially in its Third World manifestations. In the Third World, there has emerged during the past 100 years leaders who are intellectually prepared, politically astute, and morally committed; and who constructed syntheses of Marxism-Leninism with national traditions of anti-colonial struggle for national liberation.  As the Third World project of national and social liberation evolved, it arrived to forge a common vision of a more just, democratic and sustainable world, and to formulate the fundamental principles of a more just world-system. Trump knows nothing of this historically evolving social project, and therefore he is not qualified to offer a reasonable view on whatever its shortcomings may or may not be.  But in fact, the Third World project is pointing toward the necessary road, if humanity is to emancipate itself from the dominating global structures that promote conflict, generate extreme inequalities and extreme poverty, and threaten the survival of the human species.

     Although Trump lacks the knowledge to lead in an enlightened form, he possesses a certain political instinct that enables him to touch upon the concerns of the people, who are ill at ease with globalism, post-modernism, and neoliberalism.  I will discuss this logic of Trump in the next post.


References
 
Elizalde, Rosa Miriam and Luis Baez.  2003. “Los Disidentes”: Agentes de la Seguridad Cubana Revelan la Historia Real.  La Habana: Editora Política.

     The Organization of American States (OAS) was created in 1948, when the United States was at the height of its hegemony, with the intention of establishing a diplomatic structure that would enlist the participation of Latin American governments in U.S. neocolonial domination over them.  Socialist Cuba turned out to be too unified to permit the establishment near the Bay of Pigs of a beachhead provisional government, which the OAS could have recognized.  So in 1962, Latin American governments, with the honorable exception of Mexico, voted to expel Cuba from the OAS.  In 2001, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the United States was able to influence OAS to enact the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which required member nations to have representative democracy.  One suspects that the neocolonial power was thinking here of Cuba, inasmuch as the socialist nation has structures of popular democracy, and not representative democracy.  In 2009, in the context of a new political reality, OAS rescinded the expulsion; but Cuba, both before and after the rescinding, has indicated that it does not intend to return to an organization dominated by U.S. and elite interests.  

      The OAS has recently turned its attention to applying the Democratic Charter to Venezuela.  The fact that Venezuela since 1999 has had highly developed and frequently practiced structures of representative democracy, much praised by international observers, is of no obstacle, inasmuch as a neocolonial power in pursuit of its particular interests scarcely is persuaded by fundamental facts. However, on March 28, 2017, the OAS Secretary General, in spite of U.S. support, failed to attain approval from the member nations for the activation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter against Venezuela (see “ALBA backs Venezuela” 4/21/2017).  Cuba, being no great admirer of the OAS, was quick to respond, and not at all with timidity. Issuing a Declaration on the same day of March 28, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations observed that the OAS confronting Venezuela is the same OAS that has remained silent before violations of human rights in the hemisphere, including: coups d’état; disappearances; arbitrary detentions; the torture and murder of students, journalists and social leaders; unequal commerce; environmental degradation; and cultural aggressions.  The Declaration considers OAS to be decadent and shameful, and in the service of the centers of power.  It maintains that the failure of the strategy of the OAS Secretary General shows that Venezuela is not alone, and the failure is a victory for morality and Bolivarian ideas.  Meanwhile, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez observed that the failure of the OAS to apply the Democratic Charter is a result of the fact that the political reality of Latin America has changed, and it is not what it was in the 1950s.

     On April 16, an extraordinary session of the Permanent Council of OAS approved the convoking of a meeting of ministers of foreign relations to discuss the situation in Venezuela, without establishing a date for the meeting.  The convocation of the meeting was approved by 19 states, with 10 against, four abstentions, and one absence. Venezuela denounced US efforts to apply pressure on member states to support action against Venezuela, and it announced its withdrawal from OAS.

      In response to the convoking of a meeting of foreign ministers, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations issued a declaration on April 27. It maintained that the convoking of the meeting is consistent with the traditional role of OAS as “an instrument of imperialist domination in the hemisphere, with the goal of breaking the sovereignty, independence and dignity of Our America.” OAS, the Declaration asserted, consistently has turned its back on the people, acting in subordination to “oligarchical and imperialist interests.”  “It has been absent when our region has been the victims of political, economic and military interventions and aggressions, or of serious violation of human rights and democracy.”  OAS, the Declaration maintains, is incapable of representing the interests and values of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.  It has imposed a false democratic creed, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and for the poverty and exclusion of millions.  The OAS does not respect the equality and self-determination of states, and “it conspires against and subverts genuine and legitimate governments constituted with demonstrated popular backing.”  The Declaration concludes that the despicable conduct of OAS against Venezuela confirms that, “when there is a government that is not in the interests of the circles of imperial power and their allies, it will be attacked.”  

    The OAS is the diplomatic front of the battle against Venezuela.  Another front has been an economic war waged by the commercial elite in Venezuela (see “Economic and media war against Venezuela” 6/9/2016).  In addition, since the beginning of April, a sustained campaign of fascist-like violence has been unleashed by the Right, with the intention of establishing an international image of chaos and ungovernability, as a prelude and pretext for U.S. military intervention. We will look at the campaign of violence in a subsequent post.

     In yesterday’s post, we noted that the Dean of Communications of the University of Havana maintained that the Cuban people are united in believing that “Fidel is sacred,” and that, in a similar vein, I had previously maintained that the discourses of revolutionary charismatic leaders constitute “sacred texts.”  These reflections bring us to the question of the character and the role of prophets, especially in light of the fact that many persons in Cuba and Latin America have referred to Fidel as a prophet.

      The sacred texts of ancient Israel teach us that Moses, on the basis of an experience that he interpreted as an encounter with God, came to understand and to teach a vision of God as one who acts in history in defense of the oppressed.  As the chosen people of God, Ancient Israel was assigned the mission of developing a just society, unlike other nations.  But Israel as it evolved became a kingdom like others, reaching its heights under the reigns of David and Solomon. As a result, prophets emerged, denouncing the turn from the covenant between God and the people of Israel in the time of Moses, some of them focusing on the demand of God for social justice.  Among the prophets of Israel, Amos stood out as a voice condemning the social injustices of his day.  He decried corrupt public officials that reveled in luxury, wealthy merchants that trampled on the poor and the defenseless, and laws that served the interests of the commercial class.  He prophesied that if the people do not change their lifestyle and return to faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, God, acting in the arena of history, would unleash terrible events upon them, including the destruction of Israel as a nation, a prophecy that came to pass (Anderson 1986:212-316).  

      Fidel is like a modern day Amos.  He condemns the global political and economic inequalities of our time, and he defends the rights of the poor, the neocolonized, and the excluded.  But unlike the prophets of old, Fidel did not merely denounce with words, predicting the punishment of a God angry with an unfaithful people.  In addition to denouncing the global elite, Fidel led the peoples toward the construction of an alternative world-system, proclaiming the duty to maintain hope for the future of humanity.  His exceptional capacities for political leadership were evident in various stages: his discerning the necessary strategies for toppling the U.S.-supported dictator in the late 1950s; his understanding of the decisive steps necessary for establishing basic revolutionary structures in Cuba in the early 1960s; his leadership of the nation toward the development of alternative structures of Cuban popular democracy in the 1970s; his condemnation of the short-sighted economic policies of the global elite and his scientifically-informed support of the Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order in the early 1980s; his formulation of Cuban structural adjustment policies in the early 1990s, demonstrating the possibility of adjustments in the post-Welfare State era that did not ignore the needs of the people; and his active participation as Cuban head of state in the process of Latin American unity and integration in the early twenty-first century.  This modern day profit possessed not only the gift of discerning God’s will for social justice, like his ancient forebears, but he also was gifted with the capacity to teach and lead the peoples toward the construction of a more just and sustainable world-system.

      The ancient prophets condemned the ways and the policies of the elite, but the conditions did not exist for the formation of social movements.  The prophets possessed the insight and the commitment to condemn the kings, but they could not mobilize the people for the taking of power from the kings.  

      The incapacity of the people to form sustained social movements persisted throughout the ancient and feudal periods in human history. Slaves, serfs and peasants sometimes revolted, but urban-rural ideological and cultural differences as well as difficulties in communication and transportation prevented the formation of a coalition of popular sectors, necessary for sustained social movements.

      The bourgeois revolutions of the late eighteenth century in Western Europe and North America established the foundation for modern popular social movements.  The bourgeois revolutions were led by a rising merchant class, which enlisted the support of farmers, peasants, artisans and workers, who became actively engaged in the bourgeois revolutions, which ultimately were successful in establishing bourgeois control of Western political institutions.  Excluded from effective political power by the new bourgeois institutions, the popular sectors formed their own movements and organizations, sometimes organized by gender or race as well as class or occupation.  In the developed economies of the West, however, these movements could be channeled toward reformism, thus maintaining bourgeois control.

        Modern capitalism was built on a foundation of colonial domination, and the ultimate destiny of the popular movements formed by the colonized would be different from the popular movements of the West.  In the colonized regions, anti-colonial movements emerged, formed by an alliance of the national bourgeoisie and the popular sectors of peasants, agricultural workers, artisans, urban workers, and middle class merchants and professionals.  Once the colonies attained political independence, the conflict of interest between the national bourgeoisie and the popular sectors became manifest.  The national bourgeoisie had an interest in the preservation of the economic and commercial relations developed during the colonial period, with political control of the formally independent nation by the national bourgeoisie, the sovereignty of which was limited by the rules of the neocolonial world-system.  In contrast, the popular sector had an interest in a fundamental social transformation, in order that their social and economic rights would be protected; such transformation necessarily implied true independence of the nation from the colonial powers. Inasmuch as the world-system depended on the superexploitation of the people in the neocolonies and the unregulated exploitation of their natural resources, reformist concessions to popular demands were necessarily limited, and as a result, the popular movements in the neocolonies could not be channeled toward reformism.

       In this panorama, there emerged during the second half of the twentieth century a number of Third World charismatic leaders, the prophets of our time.  They were mostly young men of the middle class of the colonies/neocolonies.  Their social condition as middle class men afforded them some possibility for study and reflection, and at the same time, they found that their condition as colonized limited the possibilities for their own class, for other popular sectors, and for the nation.  They were and are exceptional leaders, with a capacity for understanding national and international economic and social dynamics, an ability to mobilize and lead the people, and a highly developed sense of social justice.  They condemned the aggression and imperialism of the colonial and neocolonial powers and the morally unjustifiable inequalities between rich and poor.  They have maintained that the neocolonial world-system is not sustainable, and that the future of humanity requires the development of a New International Economic Order, or what they today call a “just, democratic and sustainable world-system.”

      They are the legendary figures of the Third World: Toussaint of Haiti; Zapata of Mexico; Mao, Zhou En-lai and Xi Jinping of China; Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam; Sukarno of Indonesia; Gandhi and Nehru of India; Nasser of Egypt; U Nu of Burma; Ben Youssef of Algeria; Nkrumah of Ghana; Nyerere of Tanzania; Martí, Mella, Guiteras, and Fidel of Cuba; Allende of Chile; Sandino and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua; Mandela of South Africa; Chávez and Maduro of Venezuela; Evo of Bolivia; and Rafael Correa of Ecuador.  They have been found in the United States as well: DuBois, Garvey, A. Philip Randolph, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King.

     Fidel is perhaps the most legendary of them, because of the persistence of the Cuban Revolution in the face of the hostility of the neighboring neocolonial hegemonic power; the leadership of Fidel and Cuba in the Non-Aligned Movement; the concrete support of Cuba for the anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggle in Africa; the consistently dignified participation of Cuba in international fora in defense of universal human values; the presence of Cuban missions in many nations in health, education, and sports; and the vibrancy and openness of the Cuban people. 

     Like the prophets of Israel, who offered the people a choice between repentance and the wrath of God; the prophets of our time offer humanity a choice between, on the one hand, seeking to maintain an unsustainable neocolonial world-system, based in domination and superexploitation; and on the other hand, cooperative participation in the development of a more just and sustainable world-system.  Like the prophets of old, the profits of our time maintain that the existing patterns of human behavior cannot be maintained without threatening our very survival.  As expressed by Rosa Luxemburg, a prophet from another place, yet widely cited by the prophets of the Third World, it is a question of socialism or barbarism.

      We the peoples of the North should appreciate the prophets of our time as the authors of sacred texts that we should study, so that we can better discern the true and the right, and find the path toward cooperative participation in the development of that more just world that they have maintained is both necessary and possible.  As Raúl said in the eulogy to his brother, “The permanent teaching of Fidel is that it can be done.”   

​Reference
 
Anderson, Bernhard W.  1986.  Understanding the Old Testament, Fourth Edition.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 
 

     On December 5, 2016, the daily evening Cuban television program, The Roundtable, featured an interpretation of the enormous popular tribute to Fidel Castro by persons of all ages, with noteworthy participation by Cuban youth, from November 26 to December 4, following his death on November 25.  The panel was formed by two well-known television commentators, the assistant director of a Cuban digital news site, and a professor of journalism; two men and two women, who ranged from forty to sixty years of age.  The panel was directed by Randy Alonso, coordinator of the program, who regularly makes succinct and insightful commentaries, and demonstrates a keen listening capacity.

     Raúl Garcés, Professor of Journalism and Dean of the Faculty of Communication of the University of Havana, began his comments by noting that he had never seen such enthusiasm, one indication of which was the number of people who were asking what they could do to pay homage to Fidel.  There is, he observed, a personal connection between Fidel Castro and the people of all ages.  He noted that the nation has passed in recent years through a difficult economic situation, and every Cuban has his or her opinion concerning what policies ought to be adopted.  But, he observed, these recent days have demonstrated that all Cubans are in agreement on one point, namely, that “Fidel is sacred.”  In his view, the people in recent days have overwhelmingly affirmed their commitment to the revolutionary project, constituting an historic moment that represents a new point of departure.

       Garcés’ observation that “Fidel is sacred” is consistent with the concept of revolutionary charismatic leadership that I have previously expressed (see various posts in the category Charismatic Leaders). As we observe revolutionary processes, we see that they are characterized by the emergence of charismatic leaders with unusual capacities for understanding national and international dynamics, with exceptional leadership abilities, and with a profound moral commitment to social justice and to the defense of the poor, oppressed, exploited and marginalized.  I have maintained that the speeches and writings of such charismatic leaders constitute “sacred texts” that should be studied by all who seek to understand and do social justice.

      The notion that “Fidel is sacred” would be, without doubt, an unacceptable idea to many intellectuals, activists, and commentators in the societies of the North, where notions of revolution have been developed without careful observation of the characteristics of revolutions.  Such observation is necessary, and it ought to include revolutions that have been successful in creating an alternative type of society, in which there is political control by delegates of the people and a political will to respond to the needs and interests of the people and the nation.  

      Without benefit of such observation, there has emerged in the North notions that contribute to confusion.  Among historians, there has emerged a rejection of the “great white man” interpretation of history, prevalent prior to the popular revolution of the 1960s, resulting in a focus on social processes, de-emphasizing the role of individuals. However, the error of the previous historiography was not that it focused on the exceptional capacities and consequent high degree of influence of some individuals.  Its error was its writing history from above, rather than from below, and thus not seeing the movements formed and led by persons of color in the world, including some leaders who were women of color.  But the old historiography indeed was correct in discerning the exceptional capacities of some persons. 

      There also has emerged in the North a distorted understanding of democracy, according to which no person should have too much power, guided by the maxim that “power corrupts.”  This distrust of the corruptive influence of power gives rise to an insistence on term limits for officials in revolutionary organizations and governments.  And it also leads to a rejection of hierarchies of power in society and social organization, including necessary structures of legitimate power in the forms of rational-legal authority and charismatic authority (Weber 1947:324-63; see “Authoritarianism vs. legitimate power” 5/16/2016).  

      When we observe the alternative structures of popular democracy that have been developed by revolutionary processes, we see that democratic revolutions do not eliminate power and the need to develop just and reasonable structures for the distribution of power.  Rather, what occurs is that popular democratic revolutions transform structures of power, so that delegates of the people, rather than representatives of the elite, have political power.  In such revolutionary democratic societies, the forces that defend the people are given full expression, and such forces include charismatic leaders who are committed to speaking and acting in defense of the people.  Popular unity in defense of charismatic leaders is indispensable, inasmuch as true democracy has many enemies in the world, constituted by powerful sectors that seek to defend their particular privileges.

     When we recognize the sacredness of charismatic leaders and their words, there is the danger of formalism, a rigid and uncreative repetition of the words and strategies of the charismatic leader, ignoring the responsibility of critical reflection.  To avoid this error, we must follow the example of the charismatic leaders, who critically analyzed the social situation and creatively developed new understandings, embracing the tradition formulated by previous charismatic leaders and intellectuals, but pushing the received wisdom to a new stage.

     We have to study the sacred texts of the charismatic leaders, in order to discern their insights, and to creatively apply their insights to a social context that is different from the ones in which they spoke.  This requires constant critical reflection and creativity, following the example of the charismatic leaders, guided by their insights, but at the same time forging new insights and new strategies as the social context evolves, or in creatively applying the insights of charismatic leaders in different national social contexts.

      Seeking to avoid the danger of formalism, Fidel spoke against the “cult of the personality” and against the display of images of any living person.  In his final testament, Fidel requested that no monument be constructed to him, and that no street, school or hospital be named for him.  Raúl has noted that he will soon request the National Assembly for legislation to this effect.  

      My reaction to the announcement was that charismatic leadership can be extreme.  Not one monument in the entire city?  Such is the nature of charismatic leadership; it demands, and it challenges.  We of course will comply, out of respect for his insight, and for him as a person.  
       
      Rather than constructing monuments, we should be studying sacred texts and arriving at insights, so that that we do not fall into ritualistically repeating words and formulas.  This is the challenge that we confront.  

     On the other hand, we would be blind to an important dimension of the human condition if did not see that there has been among us exceptional leaders with penetrating analytical and moral insights, which can provide the basis for advancing human understanding.  The gift of charismatic leadership must be seen and appreciated, if humanity is to advance.  Its central role in revolutionary processes should be understood.

Reference
 
Weber, Max.  1947.  The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.  Translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons.  Edited with an Introduction by Talcott Parsons.  New York: The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co.


​

     With tears, with commitment to the principles that he taught, with determination to carry forward with the revolutionary project that he led, and with hope for the future of humanity, the people of Cuba have laid to rest their eternal commander-in-chief, Fidel Castro Ruz.

      The nine days of expression of affection for Fidel and support for the revolutionary project was the essence of dignity.  It was well-conceived and well-organized.  In addition to the Mass Act on November 28 in the Plaza of the Revolution in Havana and the Political Act on the evening of December 3 in the Plaza of the Revolution in Santiago de Cuba, the people had three opportunities to express their sentiments, including filing by photos of Fidel at 286 designated centers across the island, signing a pledge of commitment to the revolutionary project at 11,512 locations, and greeting the caravan transporting Fidel’s ashes from Havana to Santiago de Cuba.  This structure prevented that the people would run in a chaotic and overwhelming manner to the two principal activities in Havana and Santiago de Cuba.  

     The caravan transporting Fidel’s remains stirred the entire nation, as the people lined the streets and highways of the caravan route, waving Cuban flags, and chanting in unison, “I am Fidel.”  On December 3, the caravan was greeted with an incredibly tumultuous reception as it entered Santiago de Cuba, an historic center of revolutionary activity and a city that Fidel called “the moral capital of the revolution.”  On January 1, 1959, Fidel had entered Santiago de Cuba with a triumphant rebel army, promising to make fundamental changes in defense of the people.  On December 3, nearly fifty-eight years later, Fidel triumphantly returned, with the people proclaiming, “Mission completed; promise delivered.”

     It has been an emotional nine days.  The people, journalists, and international personalities repeatedly and passionately have expressed their sadness and their commitment to the teachings of Fidel.  

     During these days, Cuban television has been running repeatedly the mass chanting, “I am Fidel,” at the Mass Act in Havana on November 28.  The video is followed by a young person explaining why she or he “is Fidel,” and each repetition features a different person.  In their commentaries, many of the young people are demonstrating maturity of reflection and a strong commitment to the revolutionary project.  The TV spot exemplifies the use of television to promote the political and cultural formation of the people as an integral part of the forming of a revolutionary people.  In socialist Cuba, television functions primarily to educate, and only secondarily to entertain; in contrast to capitalism, where television gives emphasis to entertainment and the selling of consumer goods.

     I have observed during the last ten or fifteen years that some Cubans complain about material conditions in the presence of international visitors.  The visitors often interpret such complaining as indicating dissatisfaction with the Cuban revolution or with Cuban socialism.  But I have not viewed it in this way.  I view it as bad behavior by the people, a manifestation that they are not perfect.  The people ought to view an interchange with a visitor as an opportunity for international diplomacy, and they should conduct themselves with a sense of responsibility, explaining things that they know very well to be true, and that visitors for the most part do not know.  But they have a right to be normal, and such complaining reflects a normal human tendency to imagine that life is better somewhere else, a tendency given strength in Cuba by the presence of many international visitors from the consumer societies of the North.  

     I have never forgotten what a Cuban friend said to me many years ago, when I was new to Cuba, and I was taken aback by the way a Cuban store clerk expressed her desire to go with me to the United States.  “We Cubans speak ironically,” my friend said.  “The clerk was indirectly criticizing you, for being unable to break the U.S. blockade against us, making life here difficult.”  Regardless of the validity of this interpretation, my friend’s comment points to a general phenomenon, in which the people are framing their comments in ways that are conditioned for reception by international visitors, with various intentions and personal motives. I also have never forgotten what the international affairs official of the National Assembly of Popular Power said to my students a number of years ago.  “The people talk, but they are with us.”  

     Thus, in reflecting on the manner in which some of the people speak to international visitors, I have arrived at the conclusion that, in spite of the irresponsible talk by some, there is a deep fund of support for the revolutionary project among the people, which has continually expressed itself in a number of observable ways, including an electoral participation rate in excess of 90%, a membership of 85% in various mass organizations that are central to the Cuban system of popular democracy, the total absence of a formulation of an alternative national project, and the evident advanced understanding and strong commitment of the vanguard formed by the Cuban Revolution.

      In these days of mourning, this popular fund of support for the revolutionary project has fully and powerfully expressed itself.  The comportment of the people, their discipline, their commitment and their emotion has been incredible to behold.  I personally have been moved by it, as have been many, Cubans and international residents alike. We wonder if such a thing could possibly occur in any other nation, or if any person has ever received such a departure from this life.  

     In these days of mourning and of expressions of gratitude for the life, teachings, and commitment of Fidel, the people have demonstrated that they are a revolutionary people and the people of Fidel.

     U.S. President Barack Obama has said that history ultimately will judge concerning the legacy of Fidel Castro.  Obama previously demonstrated, in his addresses to the people and leaders of Latin America, that he has no appreciation of history.  Therefore, he is not aware that history already has judged: it has absolved Fidel, and it has condemned U.S. imperialism; for in the final analysis, the true history of humanity is not written by the powerful, but by the peoples in movement.

     In an incredible display of affection for the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution and of support for the Cuban revolutionary project, the people are chanting, “I am Fidel,” as the caravan containing the ashes of Fidel moves from town to town across the island.  The phrase emerged from the repeated affirmation, in these days of mourning, of commitment to the principles taught by Fidel.  For those who proclaim it, the phrase represents a way of saying that he or she has internalized the principles taught by Fidel, so that Fidel has not died, but lives in each person committed to the revolutionary project.  The use of the phrase may have been given a boost by Daniel Ortega, the President of Nicaragua and leader of the Sandinista Revolution, when he asked at the beginning of his oration at the Mass Act on the evening of November 29, “Where is Fidel?”  And the congregated mass chanted in response, “Yo soy Fidel.”

     The people are lined, sometime more than ten rows deep, along the streets and highways as the ashes of Fidel are transported in a caravan from the City of Havana to Santiago de Cuba, retracing in reverse the Caravan of Liberty of the triumphant rebel army during the first week of January 1959.  As the caravan passes, some are in silent solemnity.  Some make a military salute.  Many are clapping in unison, and/or are chanting, “Fidel” and “Viva Fidel” as the caravan passes. But it is the slogan “Yo soy Fidel” that is increasingly being chanted in unison, and it is becoming the signature of the historic moment.  

     Some have waited patiently for hours for to pay their respects.  At the end of the first day, the caravan arrived in Santa Clara, where the ashes of the historic leader of the Cuban revolution passed the night near the remains of the heroic guerrilla Che Guevara.  The caravan is expected to take four days before it reaches Fidel’s final resting place near the burial site of José Martí in the famous Santa Ifigenia cemetery in Santiago de Cuba. 

     The discipline and revolutionary commitment of the Cuban people is impressive and moving to behold.  Cuba is today demonstrating once again that it is the land of Fidel and of the people that Fidel has formed.

     The bourgeois press asks what will happen now that Fidel has died.  It understands nothing of Cuban reality.  

     A society is a social organism, and like any living organism, it evolves.  There can be breaks or ruptures in the evolution of a society, as can occur with a revolution or an invasion.  In the case of Cuba, the first rupture since the Spanish conquest occurred in 1898, when the United States intervened in order to prevent the triumph of a revolution committed to true independence and to a society made by all and for the good of all.  The second rupture occurred in 1959, with the triumph of a revolution led by Fidel, formed by various popular sectors and seeking national sovereignty and social transformation, standing against US imperialism and the national bourgeoisie.

    Since 1959, the Cuban revolution has evolved through different stages, always with continuity.  There have been decisive moments in its evolution:  the first revolutionary steps in the early 1960s, establishing the revolutionary socialist character of the revolution, provoking the permanent hostility of its powerful neighbor to the north; the establishment of a constitution and structures of popular power and democracy during the 1970s, with a single political party as a leadership vanguard and not as an electoral party (which were permanently eliminated as conflictive and dysfunctional); the Cuban presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1979 to 1982, during which Cuba defended the Third World project of national and social liberation, as the global elite turned to the imposition of neoliberal policies, thereby demonstrating its incapacity to resolve the structural crisis of the world-system; the collapse of the socialist bloc led by the Soviet Union, making necessary the formulation by Fidel of structural adjustments; the entrance of Cuba in the process of Latin American union and integration, as the political reality of Latin America was transformed on the foundation of renewed popular movements after 1994; the retirement of Fidel in 2006, with Raúl assuming leadership, and with the party increasingly demonstrating its capacity to function effectively as a vanguard political party; the new social and economic model of 2012, as the leadership came to conclude that further concession to foreign capital and small-scale domestic entrepreneurship could be made without jeopardizing the socialist revolution, a process that was led by the party and that was developed in response to inquietudes among the people concerning the material standard of living; and now the death of the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, at which time the Cuban people are reaffirming their commitment to the Cuban revolutionary project.

      As the Cuban revolution evolved, it established structures of popular democracy, and it was able to accomplish the institutionalization of the charismatic authority of Fidel (and Raúl) in the Communist Party.  Accordingly, with the establishment of structures of popular democracy, and with the party able to assume its role as a vanguard party, the Cuban revolutionary project will continue its evolution as a popular anti-imperialist and Fidelist revolution, with a capable vanguard formed, and with the people appreciating what the revolution has accomplished, and actively participating in the revolutionary process through structures of popular democracy.

       The bourgeois press fails to understand that nothing will happen now that Fidel has died, except that Cuba will continue on its revolutionary road, for the people are committed to the principles taught by Fidel.  It will continue to develop its society on a foundation of socialist principles, and it will continue with a foreign policy of international solidarity with the peoples, social movements, and socialist governments of the world.

       The distortions of the bourgeois press limit the understanding of the peoples of the North, particularly in the United States.  So the people do not understand Cuba, and even more importantly, the peoples of the North cannot understand the meaning of the Cuban Revolution and the lessons that it can teach the world, namely, that a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system can be created by charismatic leadership and a unified, educated and committed people.

      The intellectuals of the North have the moral duty to encounter Cuba, to arrive to understand its meaning, and to search for ways to break the ideological barriers of the societies of the North, so that the peoples of the North, armed with understanding and moral commitment, can arrive to effective political action in their own behalf and in defense of humanity.

      As for Cuba, it will persist.  Cuba is Fidel; and Fidel is Cuba.