On the morning following the death of Fidel, my wife Olga Lidia visited her family, who live on the outskirts of the City of Havana.  She reported a quietness in the streets, and a profound sadness among the people.

     I too am profoundly sad.  Although I was not surprised by the death of Fidel, it has deeply affected my emotions.

     Television interviews with citizens in the streets and commentaries by persons in positions of authority are full of expressions of sadness, but also of pledges of commitment to the principles taught to us by Fidel.  

     What are the teachings of Fidel?  Fidel taught us that a just and democratic world is possible, a world in which the sovereignty and equality of all nations is respected, overcoming the colonial structures that are the foundation of the global capitalist economy.  

     He taught us that all persons, regardless of color, class or gender, possess the inalienable rights to education, health care, cultural formation, and political participation.  

     Fidel taught us that the state has an active and decisive role to play in the economic and social development of the nation.  

     He taught us that true revolutionaries are great patriots, but that revolutionary patriots also are guided by a spirit of internationalism and solidarity among all peoples, which can be the foundation of relations among nations.  

    Fidel taught us that the revolution above all is spiritual, by which he meant commitment to understanding truth and doing justice.  

    And Fidel taught us that such principles constitute the essence of socialism.

     Fidel possessed exceptional political capacities, which were evident in: the attack on Moncada Barracks on July 26, 1956, bringing the Cuban revolutionary struggle to a new stage; his formation of a guerrilla army, which brought down the U.S.-supported dictatorship in two years; his leadership in forging the political unity of the popular sectors, parties and ideologies; his recognition of the need for decisive steps by the revolutionary government in defense of the concrete needs of the people; his leadership in the development of an alternative concept of popular power and popular democracy, an advanced alterative to representative democracy; his leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, in defense of the Third World proposal for a New International Economic Order and in opposition to the neoliberal project of the global powers; the formulation of the policies of the Special Period, demonstrating a structural adjustment that responds to the needs of the people and not to corporate profits; his recognition of the need for unity among Latin American and Caribbean the nations, peoples, and political and social organizations; and his leadership of the Cuban nation as it incorporated itself into the renewed Third World project and the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity (see “Fidel Castro dies at 90” 11/26/2016; scroll down).

     In appreciation of these exceptional qualities, the people have been filing yesterday and today in various designated places throughout the island, passing by images and quotations of the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution.  My friend Juan, whom I had met in an academic event in 1994, had called me to join a group of students and teachers as it was leaving the University of Havana, and I incorporated myself into the group.  It was a long line to the José Martí Memorial in the Plaza of the Revolution, taking three hours before we could pass the photos and quotations of Fidel.  

     As we waited, Juan introduced me to an old blind man, a former teacher.  Responding to the old man’s question, I explained that I had been employed to teach sociology, but I had no respect for disciplinary boundaries, and thus I studied political economy, history and philosophy as well.  Being a philosopher, the old man wanted to know of my interest in this field.  I explained that as a young man, I had been taught by black nationalists, who possessed an understanding of the modern world fundamentally different from the perspective that I had been previously taught at the university by white social scientists.  The awareness of these contradictory forms of understanding provoked my interest in epistemological questions, specifically the relation of social position to understanding.  He asked me where I learned this, and when I answered Chicago, we agreed that this had its logic, inasmuch as Chicago was a center for black nationalist thought.

     Juan’s students seemed so very young, more like niñas than young women.  I commented to Juan that, in his old age, he had become a teacher of niñas and the friend of the old and the blind.  He commented that the old blind man had been his most important teacher, very demanding and bringing out his best.  

      After the file, Juan and I went to my apartment, where Olga Lidia attended to us.  She had arranged through a friend to purchase beer through a private supplier, since the stores and bars were not selling alcoholic beverages during the rites for Fidel.  She cooked and served us dinner.  She conversed with Juan so that he felt at home, but she also spent time contemplating the streets of Havana from the balcony, giving us the privacy to have our discussions.  

     I have protested in the past Olga Lidia’s constant attention to my needs and comforts, but she insists, maintaining that this is how she expresses her love, and I have learned to lovingly accept it.  She often makes insightful commentaries concerning the faults of my friends, and I once responded, “My friends have their defects.  But they are my friends, and I need to have friends.”  “Of course,” she said, “and my friends too have their defects.”

     Juan and I spent a good part of the evening in discussion, drinking the beer that Olga Lidia thoughtfully had provided.  We talked of the fascist tendencies of Trump, and we speculated concerning his political alliances: whether he would ally himself with the military-industrial complex, or with the business elite of non-military commerce and industry, such as real estate, tourism, transportation and renewable energy.  We agreed that the power of the military-industrial complex could be challenged only by the united support of the people, and Trump has the support of only a sector of the people, mostly those manipulated by his scapegoating messages.  We further agreed that the United States needs a true party of the Left, capable of gaining the confidence of the people through an informed, comprehensive and global proposal, thus obtaining the necessary unity of all of the sectors of the people, including the current Trump followers as well as those scapegoated in his discourses.  Such popular unity would be necessary for checking the power of the great corporations and the military-industrial complex, thus making it possible to change the direction of the nation.

     We talked of a paper on Pan-Africanism in Brazil in the 1970s, presented at a recent academic event by a young woman of Africa descent from the United States.  We agreed that Pan-Africanism was an important progressive force during its height in the 1920s and its renewed manifestations in the 1960s and 1970s.  It was especially strong in the English colonies and settler societies, in which Africans and Africa descendants were totally excluded and exploited, but identification with the oppressor was expected.  In this context, the Pan-Africanist and black nationalist call to an international unity of the colonized in opposition to colonial and neocolonial structures of global domination was an important ideological and political message.  Pan-Africanism, black nationalism in the United States, Latin American dependency theory, African socialism, Arab socialism, and Confusion nationalism together established the intellectual foundation for the formulation of the world-systems perspective by the great U.S. sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, establishing the world-system as the unit of analysis, appreciating from below the perspective of the colonized, thus recognizing its colonial foundations.  But nowadays, with international solidarity of the peoples in opposition to the neocolonial world-system taken as a given, the most important advances in the development of an alternative and more just world-system have been forged by the unity of the people in each nation, overcoming ethnic, religious and gender differences.  In the context of today’s struggle, racial identification can be a divisive force.  Indeed, U.S. imperialism today seeks to use racial identification in Cuba as a strategy for undermining the unity of the people.  My friend Juan noted that, in his view, the young African-American woman was limited in her understanding, and was not driven by a pernicious intent.

     We discussed Cuban television commentary on Syria, and the criticism of it by a Palestinian intellectual who has been living for many years in Cuba.  Our Palestinian friend maintains that the Cuban TV commentary is oversimplified, for it ignores the interests of other regional nations, including Turkey, Iran, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, focusing on U.S. intervention.  While recognizing the validity of these comments, Juan and I agreed that the discourse of Cuban news commentary is essentially correct: The United States has identified the Syrian government as evil because Syria has sought alliance with Russia and Iran, thus hoping to establish a counterforce to U.S. political and economic interests in the region.  

      And so our struggle continues.  We continue on our journey of seeking to deepen our understanding, so that we can better teach: Juan teaching his niños, and I teaching through my blog and other writings.  And so it is with the world, each will continue to make a small contribution to the creation of that more just, democratic and sustainable world that Fidel believed is possible.  Fidel remains, and always will be, present; inspiring us by his example and teaching us through his words.  

     As expressed by Carlos Alberto Valido Castillo, President of the Municipal Assembly of Cruces, Cienfuegos, in 2006: “Fidel is eternal. He will physically die, but he always is going to be here with us.  His analysis, his teachings, and his spirit of struggle always will be with us.”

     Fidel has completed his assigned mission of teaching, leading and inspiring the peoples of Cuba and the world.  He passes today to become the eternal comandante of all the peoples in struggle for social justice.

     Cuban television this morning is announcing the opportunities that the people will have to pay tribute to the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution.  In the City of Havana, the people will be able to pass by Fidel’s remains in the José Martí Memorial of the Plaza of the Revolution all day Monday and on Tuesday morning, culminating in a memorial ceremony at noon on Tuesday, November 29. Subsequently, Fidel’s ashes will be transported along the route of the “Caravan of Liberty” of January 3 to January 8, 1959, when the triumphant Rebel Army, led by Fidel, marched from the eastern city of Santiago de Cuba to Havana, tumultuously received by the people; the historic caravan is re-enacted each year.  Fidel’s remains will be permanently placed in Santiago de Cuba, in the same cemetery that José Martí, Frank País, and other heroes and martyrs of the Cuban Revolution are buried.  In addition, in the next days, in thousands of places throughout the island, the people will have an opportunity to sign a pledge of commitment and fidelity to the principles that Fidel taught.

      I provide here, without revision, the post that I published on August 13, 2016, entitled “Thank you, Fidel,” on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of his birth.

     I preface the republication of the post with a brief anecdote.  One day a short time ago two Cuban women knocked on my apartment door, with a mission of proselytizing for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. When I politely indicated that I was not interested, one of them asked if I believe in God.  I responded, “Yes I do, and I believe that God has sent us Fidel.”  She indicated that she understood.

     Fidel Castro is 90 years old today, August 13, 2016.

     Fidel has a special place in modern history as a defender of the oppressed, as a person with such deep respect for moral principles that he could never accept the proposition that they were impossible to implement.  He has constantly and persistently acted on the premise that a different and more just and sustainable world is possible.  

     He led a revolution that came to power through armed struggle, forcing the tyrannical dictator to flee the country.  But once in power, it turned military barracks into schools, committed to the principle that education was the most powerful arm that a people and a nation could possess.

     He directed a revolution that was anti-imperialist, totally rejecting the continuous imperialist policies of the United States.  But it was not a revolution that cultivated hatred toward the United States.  From the earliest days of its taking of power, it constantly has been open to dialogue with the United States, and it has called for a negotiation of differences on a basis of mutual respect.
 
     He forged a patriotic revolution that above all else defended the sovereignty of Cuba.  But it respected the sovereignty of all nations.  A just and sustainable world, it understood, could only be built on a foundation of solidarity among all nations and peoples.  

     He came of age in the context of a corrupt and ignominious neocolonial republic, shaped from its beginnings to serve US imperialist interests.  He developed a thorough knowledge of the events and important figures of Cuban history.  Reading on his own as an adolescent about the nationalist wars and social movements against colonial Spain and the neocolonial United States, he developed not an abstract historical perspective, but a concrete interpretation rooted in the practical needs of the people and the nation.  He read and appreciated the nineteenth century Cuban revolutionary José Martí, interpreting him from the vantage point of the popular movements during the neocolonial republic.

     He developed his political consciousness at a time when Western Marxism had fallen into Eurocentrism.  Reading on his own as a university student the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, he fashioned a reconstruction of Marxism-Leninism from the perspective of the neocolonized.  Synthesizing the works of Marx and Lenin with the teachings and writings of Martí, his speeches establish an important advance in Marxist-Leninist theory (see “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014).

     He developed an understanding of Marxism that rejected dogma and reductionism.  He formulated an ethical and humanist revitalization of Marxism, in which socialism is understood as constructed by persons with consciousness, possessing a new mentality.  The cultural formation of the person, able to read and to think, is the essence of the socialist revolution.

     He has been described as a military genius.  He created and directed a guerrilla army that overthrew the US-backed military dictator in twenty-five months; and he directed the defense against the US-supported invasion at the Bay of Pigs, overcoming the invading force in seventy-two hours.  From Havana, he directed Cuban troops in Angola, a successful campaign against South African troops that protected the independence of Angola and ultimately led to the fall of apartheid.

     As he led the Cuban Revolution, he repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional mastery of the art of politics.  (1) In 1953, he discerned the need for dramatic action, moving beyond verbal protest.  Accordingly, he led an attack on the Moncada military barracks, galvanizing the people to heroic political action, and opening a new stage in the Cuban Revolution.  (2) He was sensitive to the concrete needs of the people, and he formulated a program that responded to their specific grievances, proclaimed in conjunction with the Moncada attack.  (3) He appreciated the need to educate the people in stages, bringing them to socialist consciousness only after concrete popular needs had been addressed.  (4) He saw the importance of popular unity, and he possessed the capacity to unify the various popular currents, combining flexibility with a persuasive presence.  (5) He understood the need for the revolutionary government to take decisive steps in defense of the people, even when they provoke the hostility of the national bourgeoisie and the neocolonial hegemonic power.  (See “Moncada: a great and heroic act” 9/2/2014; “The Moncada program for the people” 9/5/2014; “Reflections on “History will absolve me” 9/8/2014; “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014; “Unifying the Cuban revolutionary process” 9/17/2014; “The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 9/18/2014; “Decisive revolutionary steps of 1959” 9/22/2014; “The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959” 9/23/2014; “The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution” 9/24/2014).

     In the 1960s, understanding the importance of scientific knowledge in social and economic development, Fidel initiated a process of national commitment to the development of science and to the formation of scientists, which would continue to unfold for the next fifty years, with very impressive results today.  From the outset, Fidel had a vision of developing scientific research and knowledge in response to health needs, and not driven by the market.  And he has had an integral vision of health, seeing human health as connected to animal health, and seeing the connection of both to nature.  A variety of research and teaching centers have been developed, including such fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology, genetic medicine, minimum access surgery, and computer and informational sciences.  He has been constantly present in the development of new centers and on anniversary celebrations, thanking the scientists and researchers for their work, inquiring concerning the latest discoveries, making suggestions, and in general demonstrating the commitment of the Cuban revolution to scientific development.

      In 1970s, appreciating the limitations of representative democracy, Fidel led the nation in the development of alternative structures of popular democracy (see “Cuba, United States, and human rights” 4/9/2015).  He recognized the need for the eventual replacement of his personal leadership with that of a vanguard, and he thus led the development of a new communist party, uniting three revolutionary parties, which ultimately would function to lead the revolutionary process.  

     In the early 1980s, as the global powers turned to neoliberalism, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to be faithful to their historic project of national and social liberation.  Working with a team of Cuban economists and speaking as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, he presented an analysis of the crisis of the world-economy.  He maintained that the crisis is rooted in fundamental structures established during European colonial domination of the world, but US economic policies during the 1960s and the 1970s deepened the crisis.  US policies had negative consequences for the world-economy as well as the US economy, and they had disastrous consequences for the Third World.  He maintained that inflation (caused by US spending beyond its productive capacity), the elimination of the gold standard for the dollar, a US monetary policy of high interest rates, declining terms of trade, and declining investment in production had catastrophic consequences for the Third World, leading to a dramatic growth in the Third World external debt.  Moreover, the external debt, combined with the increasing power of transnational corporations, constituted a serious threat to the sovereignty of Third World nations.  At the same time, rather than recognizing their responsibility in creating a global crisis, the global powers and the transnational corporations took advantage of the weakened position of the Third World to impose their own ideology and economic policy, seeking short-term profits.  In response to this situation, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to struggle for cancellation of the Third World debt, for fundamental structural change in the world-economy, and for a more just world-system.  He advocated strong action by Third World states, seeking diversification of production, the development of high technology industries, and mutually beneficial trade among the nations of the Third World, thus breaking the core-peripheral relation between the Third World and the developed capitalist economies (see “Fidel speaks on the global crisis, 1983” 7/25/2016; “Fidel proposes new global structures, 1983” 7/27/2016).

     In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the socialist bloc, Fidel led the Cuban nation in the development of an autonomous structural adjustment plan, demonstrating how to make economic adjustments without sacrificing commitment to moral principles and without abandoning the people (see “The Cuban structural adjustment plan” 8/1/2016).  As the Cuban economy recovered, he led the nation in developing strong ties with the progressive and Leftist governments that symbolized the new political reality in Latin America in the early twenty-first century.

     During the five decades in which he was the active leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel was constantly committed to a society based on human knowledge and creativity and on social justice; a society in which everyone has the right to learn and to develop, no one should be abandoned, and the most vulnerable should be protected.  But in addition to moral commitment, Fidel has demonstrated an advanced understanding of the dynamics of the world-system.  With an integral historical and global perspective, formulated from the vantage point of the neocolonized, Fidel’s capacity for understanding surpassed that of the overwhelming majority of historians, social scientists and philosophers.  At the same time, he repeatedly demonstrated mastery of the art of politics, discerning the strategies necessary for the attainment of social and political goals.

       These qualities are exceptional; beyond what one would think possible for a human being.  Observing this for more than twenty years, I could not fail to recall my university study of Max Weber’s typology of three forms of authority, and his description of charismatic persons who possess authority on the basis of their exceptional qualities.  Moreover, as I studied revolutions in other lands, I could not help but observe that triumphant revolutions often were led by persons with exceptional understanding, extraordinary commitment to social justice, and uncommon mastery of the art of politics.  So I have concluded that Fidel represents the general phenomenon of the emergence of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes, who include Toussaint, Lenin, Ho, Mao, Chávez, and others.  (See various posts in the category of Charismatic Leaders).  

      After his retirement in January 2009, Fidel was no longer constantly present.  But he has continued to be present in an important way, writing articles periodically that were published in Cuban newspapers as “Reflections of Fidel.”  Among other themes, his reflections expressed support for the new Leftist tendencies in Latin America, conveyed concern for the ecological balance of the earth, and condemned the neofascist wars and the movement toward a global military dictatorship.  

      By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Communist Party of Cuba was ready for its vanguard mission.  Composed of committed persons who have developed an advanced understanding, party members are highly respected by the people, and they are intellectually and morally prepared to lead.  In November 2010, the party presented guidelines for a new economic and social policy, responding to the desires of the people and the unfolding national and international economic situation.  After significant modification of the proposal through an extensive popular consultation, the new model was approved by the National Assembly in 2012.  The party today is leading the people in the implementation and development of the new economic and social model.  Thus, one can observe today in Cuba what can be described as the institutionalization of charismatic authority through the creation of a vanguard political party that bases its theory and practice on the teachings of the charismatic leader, the historic leader of the revolution from 1953 to 2009.

     Fidel has appeared from time to time to give his support to the development of the new social and economic model, which is principally designed to increase national production in order to improve the standard of living of the people.  He has praised party members for their intelligent and active participation in the process, and he particularly has noted the impressive capacities of young leaders that have been formed by the revolution.  “I am confident,” he proclaimed, “that the youth of Cuba will fulfill its duty.”

     There is a special bond of affection between Fidel and the Cuban people.  But Fidel is especially appreciated by Cuban intellectuals, artists, and scientists, who analyze his special capacities from the vantage point of their professions and fields of study.  Fidel also is appreciated by well-known intellectuals of Europe and Latin America, such as the French journalist Ignacio Ramonet, the Argentinian social analyst Atilio Borón, and the Brazilian intellectual and Dominican priest Frei Betto, who have had opportunity to observe his exceptional capacities.

     In the days leading up to the anniversary of the ninetieth birthday of Fidel Castro, there has been a clamor that the major media of communication has not heard.  It is the proclamation of popular organizations throughout the world, declaring: “Thank you, Fidel, for your commitment; thank you for your defense of the people; and in the context of a world increasingly turning to barbarity, thank you for your fidelity to moral principles.”  

     Thank you, Fidel.

     As we have seen, in moving to the “normalization” of relations with Cuba, the United States is changing its methods, but it maintains the objective of promoting change in Cuba, in order to attain its economic interests.  The sovereignty of Cuba, the rights and necessities of the Cuban people, or the meaning of global social justice are secondary considerations, at most (see “Cuba’s high-quality public discourse” 10/29/2016).

     The new direction in US policy with respect to Cuba brings to mind the concept of “soft power.”  The term was coined by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., in 1990, and he further developed and explored the concept in Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, published in 2004. Nye was former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and he was Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration.  

      Nye defines soft power as the ability to influence the behavior of others and get want you want through attraction and cooptation rather than by coercing with threats or inducing with payments.  A country possesses soft power when people are attracted to it because of its values, political institutions, cultural products, exemplary conduct, advanced technology, prosperity, openness, and far-sighted foreign policies.  A country with soft power can coopt people and institutions in other countries, getting them to do want it wants, because they find it attractive (Nye 2004:x, 2, 5-8, 14, 44-62).

      In contrast to soft power, hard power attains the interests of a country through coercion, which can be military or economic, and economic inducement.  In Nye’s formulation, economic hard power includes coercing through economic sanctions or inducing through economic aid and bribes (Nye 2004:5, 8, 31). 

     Nye criticizes the overreliance on hard power in the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration.  He contrasts the policy of the Bush administration with the Cold War era balance of hard and soft power in the formulation of “smart policies,” enabling the United States to prevail in that conflict and to maintain its global primacy.  He calls for a return to a balance of hard and soft power in US foreign policy (Nye 2004:128-35, 144-47).

     Although Nye criticizes the strategies and policies of the Bush administration, his objectives are the same.  He assumes that the purpose of US foreign policy is to promote and defend the power and economic interests of the United States.  For Nye, the purpose of US foreign policy is not to contribute to the development of a more just and sustainable world-system, cooperating with other governments toward this end.  He sees cooperation with other governments as a smart strategy for attaining US political and economic interests.
     
     The new direction of the Obama administration with respect to Cuba is fully consistent with Nye’s recommendations.  Essentially, the new policy, as announced, is a move from hard power to soft power, which goes beyond what Nye proposes.  However, as implemented, it is a mixture of hard and soft power, crafted to attain US interest in change in Cuba.  To date, the changes that have been announced remove those aspects of the blockade that are seen as the greatest obstacles to the new US strategy of strengthening small private entrepreneurship.  The expectation is that this sector, attracted to US values and institutions, will have the interest and capacity to promote change in Cuba, making the Cuban system more compatible with US economic interests.  But the many dimensions of the blockade that damage several important economic sectors in the Cuban socialist system remain intact.  So economic hard power remains in place.  Moreover, during his visit to Cuba in March, Obama indicated that the Congress likely would eliminate the blockade more rapidly if Cuba were to initiate reforms.  Thus, the policy continues to be the use of economic hard power in order to induce change, even though it has announced that it desires the elimination of economic coercion.

       In addition, the Obama directive of October 14 declared the future continuation of subversive radio and television programs, which violate international and Cuban broadcasting laws; and of programs that are designed to “promote democracy,” which violate international diplomatic regulations concerning non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations.  The continuation of these programs could be considered as the implementation of political hard power, because only a superpower can get ignore international laws and regulations with impunity.

      The move toward soft power with respect to Cuba is necessary. The United States has little choice, as a result of the capacity of the Cuban Revolution to endure.  The blockade has been condemned by the nations of the world, and it undermines the attainment of its objectives in Latin America, without producing any benefit to the United States.  

       Although the United States is compelled to move a balance of hard and soft power in the particular case of Cuba, the United States will find this approach increasingly difficult as a general guideline for US foreign policy, inasmuch as US soft power and economic hard power have deteriorated in recent decades.  Nye recognizes that rejection by the peoples of the world of US wars in the Middle East has provoked anti-Americanism and a decline in US soft power.  But he completely overlooks the negative reaction of the peoples of the Third World to the US imposition of the neoliberal project, causing him to underestimate the profound loss of US soft power.  Moreover, he does not take into account the commercial decline of the United States since the 1960s, so that he does not discern the declining capacity of the United States to exercise economic hard power.  Nye does not see that the United States, with its soft power and economic hard power in decline, will have to increasingly resort to unilateral military action, if its goal is to preserve the structures of superexploitation of the Third World.  His proposal for a balance of hard and soft power is idealistic, inasmuch as it is not informed by the real economic, political and social conditions that establish limited possibilities for the United States as well as the world-system.  Given these conditions, if the United States wants to maintain its power and wealth, accumulated during its ascent to hegemony in a world-system in transition to neocolonialism and during its hegemonic dominance in a neocolonial world-system, it will have to increasingly resort to unilateral military action and unilateral wars of aggression, ultimately culminating in a US-directed global military dictatorship.

       But a more dignified road is possible for the United States.  It could base its foreign policy on the recognition that US hegemony is no longer possible, that the world-system is no longer sustainable as a neocolonial world-system, and that a more just and sustainable world-system is possible through the cooperation of all the nations and peoples of the world.  Since 1973, the US elite has demonstrated that it is incapable of recognizing these realities.  Therefore, the future of humanity and the good of the nation require the taking of power by the people, taking political power from the hands of the corporations and their political representatives.  The changed political reality in Latin America teaches us that the people take power by forming alternative political parties that patiently and effectively organize and educate the people to defend their interests and the dignity of the nation.

​

Reference
 
Nye, Joseph S., Jr.  2004.  Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.  New York:  Public Affairs.

     On October 17, nine days before the historic vote on the Cuban resolution against the blockade in the UN General Assembly (see “The pride and the glory of Cuba” 10/27/2016), Cuban youth organizations, including the Federation of University Students, organized a day of activities in protest of the blockade in all of the provinces of the country.  At the central plaza of the University of Havana, Josefina Vidal spoke to a large crowd of students.  Vidal is the General Director of the US Section of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations, and she is the chief of the Cuban delegation in the on-going negotiations between Cuba and the United States in the process of the “normalization” of relations between the two countries.

      Vidal’s speech, followed by thorough responses to six questions from students, is a perfect example of the high quality of public discourse that prevails in Cuba.  It was clearly articulated and succinct, yet thorough.  It was objective, identifying the positive and negative aspects of Obama’s policy toward Cuba since the two governments agreed to move toward the normalization of relations.  It was imbued with a firm commitment to Cuba’s right to be a truly sovereign nation.

     Vidal described the presidential directive emitted by President Obama on October 14 as a significant step toward the lifting of the blockade.  She noted that it is only the second time that a US president has emitted a directive with respect to Cuba, the first being a secret document of President Jimmy Carter in 1997, which was declassified at Carter’s request in 2002.  Vidal observed that the Obama directive is the first official document to recognize the independence, sovereignty and self-determination of Cuba and the legitimacy of the Cuban government.  Moreover, the directive recognizes the benefits to both countries of a relation defined by civilized co-existence and cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

      However, Vidal maintained, in spite of such positive characteristics, the directive contains interventionist elements.  It makes clear that the objective of US policy is to advance US interests in Cuba by promoting political, economic and social changes in Cuba, especially through the development of the Cuban private sector.  It announces the continuation of old instruments of US policy, such as illegal radio and television emissions against Cuba, and the subversive programs designed to “promote democracy” in Cuba.  And it declares that the United States has no intention of returning to Cuban jurisdiction the territory occupied by the US Naval Base in Guantanamo.

      The Obama administration recognizes that the blockade against Cuba has failed.  But, Vidal asks, in what sense has it failed?  She maintains that, from the perspective of the Obama administration, the blockade has failed to attain the changes in Cuba that would be consistent with US interests.  Therefore, the United States is changing its policy, but not its strategic objective of promoting change in Cuba. For this reason, it utilizes some of its old methods, combining them with new methods in the context of the new bilateral reality being shaped by the process of normalization.  And because the intention of changing Cuba remains, Obama does not utilize various executive capacities that he has to weaken the blockade; he has acted to change only those aspects of the blockade that are seen as the greatest obstacles to US interests.

     Vidal maintains that the Obama directive reiterates the call to the Congress to lift the blockade, and it affirms that the United States does not intend to impose a political-economic model on Cuba; however, the directive “does not abandon . . . the habitual comportment of wanting to interfere in the internal affairs” of Cuba.  Vidal took the occasion to reiterate “the will of the Cuban government to develop respectful and cooperative relations, but this has to be on the basis of full equality and reciprocity, absolute respect for the independence and sovereignty of Cuba, and without interference in any form.”

     Vidal also analyzed the new package of measures that were announced by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control on October 14. She described the measures as positive, but very limited in scope. There continue to be significant restrictions on US investments in Cuba, the sale of US products in Cuba, and the sale of Cuban products in the United States.  She maintains that the president has prerogatives to authorize transactions in these areas, but up to now, he has not exercised them.  In her view, the measures adopted benefit more the interests of the United States than Cuba or the people of Cuba.

      Vidal concluded: “The blockade persists.  President Obama has just reiterated in the presidential directive that the blockade ought to be lifted, but the reality is that he has not exhausted all his executive prerogatives in order to contribute in a decisive manner to the dismantling of the blockade.” 

     In response to questions from the students, Vidal maintained that any future president could ignore or reverse the directive, but the document also could serve as a guide or point of reference for the continuation of the normalization of relations initiated by Obama. She also discussed the growing opposition to the blockade in the US Congress, and the difficulties in bringing legislative proposals to a vote in the Congress, as a result of the opposition to the lifting of the blockade by the leadership in the House of Representatives.  She further noted that the growing opposition to the blockade in the Congress is not, for the most part, based on the damage that it does to Cuba, but on the damage that it does to US economic interests and US strategic interests with respect to Cuba. 

      In responding to student questions, Vidal also reviewed the various laws that have established and shaped the blockade:  the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917; the Emergency Powers Act of 1973; the Torricelli Law of 1992; the Helms-Burton Law of 1996; and a law reforming sanctions in 2000.  Because of these laws, there are a number of things that Obama cannot do through executive action: he cannot end the blockade; he cannot permit any transaction involving US properties that were nationalized by Cuba; he cannot authorize subsidiaries of US companies in third countries to engage in commerce in Cuba; and he cannot permit US citizens to travel to Cuba for touristic purposes.  But the Helms-Burton law specifically states that the law does not eliminate the presidential prerogative to approve transactions by means of licenses.  Presidents Clinton and Obama have exercised these prerogatives, on a limited scale, but at a level sufficient to demonstrate their legality.  The President could use his prerogatives on a much larger scale to advance the process of normalization, including the authorization of US investments and sales of US products in various essential branches of the Cuban economy as well as the sale of Cuban products in the United States.

     Josephine Vidal’s discourse at the University of Havana on October 17 was widely and fully covered by Cuban television and newspapers. Following the nightly news on Cuban national television on the evening of October 17, Vidal’s speech and subsequent interchange was broadcast in its entirely.  The unscheduled broadcast played havoc with the evening television schedule, but there it was.  The following morning, the country’s principle national newspaper, Granma, provided an excellent and thorough summary of the basic points of Vidal’s discourse (written by reporters Lissy Rodriguez Guerrero and Iramsy Peraza Forte), including a wonderful photo of Vidal seated on a wooden chair on a makeshift stage, surrounded by students.  On October 20, Granma provided a twelve-page special supplement devoted to the day of protest against the blockade.  Vidal’s speech and subsequent dialogue were printed in their entirety, taking up four of the twelve pages.  Her discourse was given the title, “President Obama goes away, but the blockade remains,” which was a sentence that she uttered in her discourse.  The Special Supplement also printed the Presidential Directive issued by Barack Obama (three and one-half pages), placing in boldface those parts of the directive that Granma considers interventionist or vestiges of the past policy.  And the Special Supplement provided a list of eighteen things that Obama has the authority to do that would weaken the blockade and advance the process of normalization, but thus far he has not done so.

     The excellent discourse of Josefina Vidal and the extensive news coverage of it are in no sense exceptional events.  High-quality discourses by government officials and news coverage that provides the people with full access to the discourses are regularly occurring events.  

      No one could claim that the majority of people take in all in.  Most did not listen to or read Josefina’s discourse in its entirely.  But most listened or read in part, or listened to those who did, which enabled them to form a general understanding that the Obama administration is changing its method but not its objectives, and the that Cuban leadership is capable and is doing the best that it can to defend the nation in this complex situation.  So that a people is continually being formed, with trust and confidence in their leadership, and with a general understanding of political complexities.

     But there were some of the people who were taking it all in, listening to or reading it in its entirely, exemplified by the students who were asking questions.  Such persons emerge as leaders in a variety of institutions, and they continually are attentive to educating themselves, capacitating them to lead the people.  This is an integral part of a social process that involves the formation and self-education of the leadership and the people, in which educators, political leaders and journalists all play a central role.  For more than fifty years in Cuba, a revolutionary leadership and a revolutionary people have been forming themselves, seeking to defend the people and the sovereignty of the nation, believing that a more just and democratic world is possible through defense of Cuban values and in solidarity with the peoples of the earth.

     Whereas capitalism must ideologically manipulate the people in order to try to obscure the fact that government policies promote corporate interests, socialism depends upon the political and cultural formation of the people.  I have seen both first hand, and I can give personal witness that the latter is far more beneficial to the society and the individual.  And I believe that the high quality of Cuban leadership, standing in sharp contrast to the qualities of political leaders in the powerful and wealthy countries, will become increasingly evident to the peoples of the world as the profound structural crisis of the world-system deepens.
      

     Cuban government officials, journalists and people are describing the unanimous UN vote against the US blockade of Cuba as a historic day of glory for Cuba, and they are celebrating it with pride in the nation and the Cuban Revolution.

     Every year since 1992, the Cuban government has submitted a resolution to the UN General Assembly on the need to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.  In the first year, 59 governments voted in favor of the resolution, with 71 abstaining and 46 absent; only the United States, Israel and Rumania voted against the resolution.  Each year from 1993 to 2006, the delegations in increasing numbers moved from abstention or absence, such that one can observe a pattern of steadily increasing numbers of votes in favor of the resolution, with the following numbers each year in chronological order: 88, 101, 117, 137, 143, 157, 155, 167, 167, 173, 179, 179, 182, and 186.  From 2007 to 2014, the vote in favor fluctuated between 184 and 188.  In 2015, the vote in favor increased to 191, with no abstentions, and with only the United States and Israel voting against. From 1992 to 2015, no more than four nations voted against the resolution in any given year, and only the United States and Israel voted against the resolution every year.  Only six nations voted against the resolution one or more times: Rumania (1992), Albania (1993), Paraguay (1993), Uzbekistan (1995, 1996, 1997), Marshall Islands (2001 through 2007), and Palau (2006 through 2009 and 2012).  

     The vote on October 26, 2016 was unanimous: 191 votes in favor; two abstentions (United States and Israel); and no votes against.  It was a historic moment, for marked the first time that the United States did not vote against the resolution.

      In explaining the decision of the US delegation to abstain, the US Ambassador to the United Nations observed that the original intention of the US policy was to isolate Cuba, but as the vote demonstrates, it is the United States that has become isolated.  She also commented that the cooperation between Cuban and US doctors in combatting the Ebola epidemic in Africa shows that cooperation among nations, rather than confrontation, is the better guide for international relations.

       Following the vote, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez addressed the General Assembly.  He thanked the US Ambassador for her words and for the decision to abstain, but he insisted that words must be joined to action, and the US blockade of Cuba must be put to an end in practice.  He emotionally expressed his pride in the people of Cuba, for their resistance and for their support of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel and Raúl.  He aggressively defended to right of Cuba to be sovereign and independent, and to develop its political-economic system in accordance with its values and its history.  He proclaimed that Cuba will never return to capitalism, and that it sees its future as a road of developing a prosperous and sustainable socialism.  He concluded his address by thanking the nations, organizations, and peoples of the world for their unanimous condemnation of the US blockade against Cuba, and he thanked the people of the United States for their increasing consciousness and rejection of this violation of international law by the government of the United States.  

     In the days leading up to the October 26 vote, Cuban mass organizations and civil society were engaging in a variety of activities in protest of the blockade and in support of the Cuban resolution before the General Assembly.  Student organizations were especially active in all the provinces of the country.  That people who have suffered from the material consequences of the blockade would be opposed to it is hardly surprising.  But one could imagine a different scenario, taking into account what often occurs in many nations of the world, where the government is repressive and/or indifferent to the needs of the people. In any nation confronting an economic blockade by a superpower (and historic trading partner) for more than fifty years, it would be possible for the people to be demanding that their government make the changes that are ordered by the global power, so that the blockade and consequent suffering of the people would end.  But it has not been so in Cuba.  There has been and continues to be overwhelming popular support in Cuba for the firm insistence by the Cuban government on its sovereignty, regardless of the consequences.  The support by the Cuban people of the Cuban government’s policy with respect to the US blockade is yet one more sign of the commitment of the people to the Cuban Revolution, and of their trust and confidence in its leadership.  As the Venezuelan ambassador to Cuba said on the historic day, the persistent sacrifice of the Cuban people in defense of its revolution and the sovereignty of the nation is truly remarkable. 

      The October 26 vote by the General Assembly changes no law or policy.  It is merely a protest.  But what an incredible protest it is, organized by the Cuban revolutionary government.  Twenty-four years ago, when the protest began, Cuba was in the midst of an economic freefall caused by the collapse of the socialist bloc, and the United States was deepening and expanding the blockade.  At that historic moment, the Cuban government, in addition to refusing to adopt the structural adjustments demanded of the world by the global powers, made the commitment to seek the support of the governments and peoples of the world in demanding an end to the immoral and illegal blockade, then in its thirtieth year.  The protest has been persistent, involving constant work with delegations to get and keep them on board.  And most importantly, it has been accompanied by thorough oral and written explanations, which: (1) have documented in detail the various consequences of the blockade for the people of Cuba and for the people of other countries, including the United States; (2) have presented arguments showing that the blockade violates international law, and that it is inconsistent with moral principles that have been enshrined in documents emitted by international organizations, including the United Nations and numerous organizations in which the majority of the nations of the world are members; and (3) have connected the blockade to larger issues of global social justice, including the imperialism of the global powers, the denial of the right of true sovereignty to the majority of nations of the world, and the need to develop a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system.

     This protest of the US blockade, organized by the Cuban revolutionary government, is of such length, scope and power that it cannot possibly be ignored, even by an arrogant superpower.  

     The blockade will end.  And Cuba will have survived it, battered by its consequences, but with its sovereignty intact, and its revolution looking to the future.  

     Fidel Castro is 90 years old today, August 13, 2016.

     Fidel has a special place in modern history as a defender of the oppressed, as a person with such deep respect for moral principles that he could never accept the proposition that they were impossible to implement.  He has constantly and persistently acted on the premise that a different and more just and sustainable world is possible.  

     He led a revolution that came to power through armed struggle, forcing the tyrannical dictator to flee the country.  But once in power, it turned military barracks into schools, committed to the principle that education was the most powerful arm that a people and a nation could possess.

     He directed a revolution that was anti-imperialist, totally rejecting the continuous imperialist policies of the United States.  But it was not a revolution that cultivated hatred toward the United States.  From the earliest days of its taking of power, it constantly has been open to dialogue with the United States, and it has called for a negotiation of differences on a basis of mutual respect.
 
     He forged a patriotic revolution that above all else defended the sovereignty of Cuba.  But it respected the sovereignty of all nations.  A just and sustainable world, it understood, could only be built on a foundation of solidarity among all nations and peoples.  

     He came of age in the context of a corrupt and ignominious neocolonial republic, shaped from its beginnings to serve US imperialist interests.  He developed a thorough knowledge of the events and important figures of Cuban history.  Reading on his own as an adolescent about the nationalist wars and social movements against colonial Spain and the neocolonial United States, he developed not an abstract historical perspective, but a concrete interpretation rooted in the practical needs of the people and the nation.  He read and appreciated the nineteenth century Cuban revolutionary José Martí, interpreting him from the vantage point of the popular movements during the neocolonial republic.

     He developed his political consciousness at a time when Western Marxism had fallen into Eurocentrism.  Reading on his own as a university student the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, he fashioned a reconstruction of Marxism-Leninism from the perspective of the neocolonized.  Synthesizing the works of Marx and Lenin with the teachings and writings of Martí, his speeches establish an important advance in Marxist-Leninist theory (see “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014).

     He developed an understanding of Marxism that rejected dogma and reductionism.  He formulated an ethical and humanist revitalization of Marxism, in which socialism is understood as constructed by persons with consciousness, possessing a new mentality.  The cultural formation of the person, able to read and to think, is the essence of the socialist revolution.

     He has been described as a military genius.  He created and directed a guerrilla army that overthrew the US-backed military dictator in twenty-five months; and he directed the defense against the US-supported invasion at the Bay of Pigs, overcoming the invading force in seventy-two hours.  From Havana, he directed Cuban troops in Angola, a successful campaign against South African troops that protected the independence of Angola and ultimately led to the fall of apartheid.

     As he led the Cuban Revolution, he repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional mastery of the art of politics.  (1) In 1953, he discerned the need for dramatic action, moving beyond verbal protest.  Accordingly, he led an attack on the Moncada military barracks, galvanizing the people to heroic political action, and opening a new stage in the Cuban Revolution.  (2) He was sensitive to the concrete needs of the people, and he formulated a program that responded to their specific grievances, proclaimed in conjunction with the Moncada attack.  (3) He appreciated the need to educate the people in stages, bringing them to socialist consciousness only after concrete popular needs had been addressed.  (4) He saw the importance of popular unity, and he possessed the capacity to unify the various popular currents, combining flexibility with a persuasive presence.  (5) He understood the need for the revolutionary government to take decisive steps in defense of the people, even when they provoke the hostility of the national bourgeoisie and the neocolonial hegemonic power.  (See “Moncada: a great and heroic act” 9/2/2014; “The Moncada program for the people” 9/5/2014; “Reflections on “History will absolve me” 9/8/2014; “Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014; “Unifying the Cuban revolutionary process” 9/17/2014; “The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 9/18/2014; “Decisive revolutionary steps of 1959” 9/22/2014; “The Agrarian Reform Law of 1959” 9/23/2014; “The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution” 9/24/2014).

     In the 1960s, understanding the importance of scientific knowledge in social and economic development, Fidel initiated a process of national commitment to the development of science and to the formation of scientists, which would continue to unfold for the next fifty years, with very impressive results today.  From the outset, Fidel had a vision of developing scientific research and knowledge in response to health needs, and not driven by the market.  And he has had an integral vision of health, seeing human health as connected to animal health, and seeing the connection of both to nature.  A variety of research and teaching centers have been developed, including such fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology, genetic medicine, minimum access surgery, and computer and informational sciences.  He has been constantly present in the development of new centers and on anniversary celebrations, thanking the scientists and researchers for their work, inquiring concerning the latest discoveries, making suggestions, and in general demonstrating the commitment of the Cuban revolution to scientific development.

      In 1970s, appreciating the limitations of representative democracy, Fidel led the nation in the development of alternative structures of popular democracy (see “Cuba, United States, and human rights” 4/9/2015).  He recognized the need for the eventual replacement of his personal leadership with that of a vanguard, and he thus led the development of a new communist party, uniting three revolutionary parties, which ultimately would function to lead the revolutionary process.  

     In the early 1980s, as the global powers turned to neoliberalism, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to be faithful to their historic project of national and social liberation.  Working with a team of Cuban economists and speaking as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, he presented an analysis of the crisis of the world-economy.  He maintained that the crisis is rooted in fundamental structures established during European colonial domination of the world, but US economic policies during the 1960s and the 1970s deepened the crisis.  US policies had negative consequences for the world-economy as well as the US economy, and they had disastrous consequences for the Third World.  He maintained that inflation (caused by US spending beyond its productive capacity), the elimination of the gold standard for the dollar, a US monetary policy of high interest rates, declining terms of trade, and declining investment in production had catastrophic consequences for the Third World, leading to a dramatic growth in the Third World external debt. Moreover, the external debt, combined with the increasing power of transnational corporations, constituted a serious threat to the sovereignty of Third World nations.  At the same time, rather than recognizing their responsibility in creating a global crisis, the global powers and the transnational corporations took advantage of the weakened position of the Third World to impose their own ideology and economic policy, seeking short-term profits.  In response to this situation, Fidel called upon the nations of the Third World to struggle for cancellation of the Third World debt, for fundamental structural change in the world-economy, and for a more just world-system.  He advocated strong action by Third World states, seeking diversification of production, the development of high technology industries, and mutually beneficial trade among the nations of the Third World, thus breaking the core-peripheral relation between the Third World and the developed capitalist economies (see “Fidel speaks on the global crisis, 1983” 7/25/2016; “Fidel proposes new global structures, 1983” 7/27/2016).

     In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the socialist bloc, Fidel led the Cuban nation in the development of an autonomous structural adjustment plan, demonstrating how to make economic adjustments without sacrificing commitment to moral principles and without abandoning the people (see “The Cuban structural adjustment plan” 8/1/2016).  As the Cuban economy recovered, he led the nation in developing strong ties with the progressive and Leftist governments that symbolized the new political reality in Latin America in the early twenty-first century.

     During the five decades in which he was the active leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel was constantly committed to a society based on human knowledge and creativity and on social justice; a society in which everyone has the right to learn and to develop, no one should be abandoned, and the most vulnerable should be protected.  But in addition to moral commitment, Fidel has demonstrated an advanced understanding of the dynamics of the world-system.  With an integral historical and global perspective, formulated from the vantage point of the neocolonized, Fidel’s capacity for understanding surpassed that of the overwhelming majority of historians, social scientists and philosophers.  At the same time, he repeatedly demonstrated mastery of the art of politics, discerning the strategies necessary for the attainment of social and political goals.

       These qualities are exceptional; beyond what one would think possible for a human being.  Observing this for more than twenty years, I could not fail to recall my university study of Max Weber’s typology of three forms of authority, and his description of charismatic persons who possess authority on the basis of their exceptional qualities.  Moreover, as I studied revolutions in other lands, I could not help but observe that triumphant revolutions often were led by persons with exceptional understanding, extraordinary commitment to social justice, and uncommon mastery of the art of politics.  So I have concluded that Fidel represents the general phenomenon of the emergence of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes, who include Toussaint, Lenin, Ho, Mao, Chávez, and others.  (See various posts in the category of Charismatic Leaders).  

      After his retirement in January 2009, Fidel was no longer constantly present.  But he has continued to be present in an important way, writing articles periodically that were published in Cuban newspapers as “Reflections of Fidel.”  Among other themes, his reflections expressed support for the new Leftist tendencies in Latin America, conveyed concern for the ecological balance of the earth, and condemned the neofascist wars and the movement toward a global military dictatorship.  

      By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Communist Party of Cuba was ready for its vanguard mission. Composed of committed persons who have developed an advanced understanding, party members are highly respected by the people, and they are intellectually and morally prepared to lead.  In November 2010, the party presented guidelines for a new economic and social policy, responding to the desires of the people and the unfolding national and international economic situation.  After significant modification of the proposal through an extensive popular consultation, the new model was approved by the National Assembly in 2012.  The party today is leading the people in the implementation and development of the new economic and social model.  Thus, one can observe today in Cuba what can be described as the institutionalization of charismatic authority through the creation of a vanguard political party that bases its theory and practice on the teachings of the charismatic leader, the historic leader of the revolution from 1953 to 2009.

     Fidel has appeared from time to time to give his support to the development of the new social and economic model, which is principally designed to increase national production in order to improve the standard of living of the people.  He has praised party members for their intelligent and active participation in the process, and he particularly has noted the impressive capacities of young leaders that have been formed by the revolution.  “I am confident,” he proclaimed, “that the youth of Cuba will fulfill its duty.”

     There is a special bond of affection between Fidel and the Cuban people.  But Fidel is especially appreciated by Cuban intellectuals, artists, and scientists, who analyze his special capacities from the vantage point of their professions and fields of study.  Fidel also is appreciated by well-known intellectuals of Europe and Latin America, such as the French journalist Ignacio Ramonet, the Argentinian social analyst Atilio Borón, and the Brazilian intellectual and Dominican priest Frei Betto, who have had opportunity to observe his exceptional capacities.

     In the days leading up to the anniversary of the ninetieth birthday of Fidel Castro, there has been a clamor that the major media of communication has not heard.  It is the proclamation of popular organizations throughout the world, declaring: “Thank you, Fidel, for your commitment; thank you for your defense of the people; and in the context of a world increasingly turning to barbarity, thank you for your fidelity to moral principles.”  

     Thank you, Fidel.

​

Posted April 18, 2016

​     In the aftermath of the visit of US President Barack Obama to Cuba, the moderator of the discussion list of the Association of Black Sociologists, Rodney Coates, posted on the list a number of articles dealing with the issue of race in Cuba.  Coates is Professor of Global and Intercultural Studies and Director of Black World Studies at the Miami University of Ohio.

     One of the posted articles was “Sankofa Cuba: Racism and Revolution in the Afro-Cuban Experience” by Abdul Alkalimat.  The article was published in the Fall 2013 issue of The Black Activist.  

      As the article observes, “every society has a master narrative,” a prevailing consensus that selectively identifies and interprets important events in the history of the society, and that frames contemporary issues.  In the case of the United States, the master narrative has been shaped by the white power elite, and it is full of distortions and omissions.  Indeed, this is unavoidable, because the narrative functions to manipulate the people into support of policies that promote elite interests.  It proclaims the nation to be the most democratic in human history, and thus it must omit or minimize undemocratic components in US history.  Especially important in this regard is the omission of the fundamental truth that the US economic ascent was based on the aggressive acquisition of territory, the commercial connection to slavery in the Caribbean, the development of slavery as a system within its own borders, and the imperialist penetration of all regions of the planet.  Pretending to defend democracy throughout the world, the nation is in fact a global imperial power.

     In contrast, the dominant narrative in socialist Cuba has been created by a multiracial movement formed by professionals, workers, farmers, students and women, which took power from a political class that represented the interests of a subordinate national bourgeoisie, international capital, and US imperialism.  Once it took political power, the leadership of the popular movement took decisive steps in defense of the interest of the popular sectors, thus provoking the hostility powerful actors.  Its best defense against them was the unified support of the people, which required popular understanding of the necessity of the decisive steps as well as the unavoidable hostile reaction.  The Cuban Revolution has had an interest in forging a narrative that educates rather than manipulates the people, and thus it has developed a narrative that is grounded in an advanced integral philosophical historical social science, forged with the active participation of intellectuals and academics.

       Alkalimat describes the formation of autonomous Afro-Cuban political organizations from 1812 to 1912, a phenomenon that is recognized in the dominant Cuban narrative.  He also notes that from 1912 to 1959 autonomous black organization was not the pattern. Rather, there was significant Afro-Cuban leadership and participation in multiracial organizations, which included important organizations that were successful in mobilizing the people and in attaining popular support.  However, the article does not fully appreciate the significance of this experience for the Cuban interpretation of its struggle.

       In popular movements, there are competing strategies being proposed, with internal debates among the leadership concerning what strategies are going to be most effective.  Often, these debates are resolved by the success of some strategies.  This occurred with respect to the internal debates in the Cuban popular revolution concerning whether the guerrilla war in the countryside or strikes and sabotage in the cities would bring down the dictator.  The debate was settled by events.  The military advances by the rebel army in the countryside caused the dictator to flee the country, even though it is of course recognized that the contributions and sacrifices of the urban underground must be appreciated and honored. 

     Something like this occurred with respect to the issue of autonomous black organizations.  The revolution triumphed with multiracial organizations that represented various popular sectors, who were organized according to occupation or function (in the rebel army and in organizations formed by urban professionals, urban workers, agricultural workers, and students) rather than by race or color.  This experience led to the interpretation that multiracial popular organization is ultimately the necessary strategy for prevailing against powerful forces, accompanied by recognition that separate black organizations in some cases constituted a progressive dynamic that in a particular historical moment contributed to the advance of the Cuban project of national liberation.  

     This interpretation shaped the organization of the triumphant revolution, as it faced powerful counterrevolutionary forces.  The people were organized as urban workers (including professionals), agricultural workers, small farmers, students, women and neighborhoods; but not according to race or color.  The dominant revolutionary narrative maintained that to organize the people according to race or color would ignore the lessons learned in the long popular struggle, and it would undermine the necessary unity of the people.  The revolutionary narrative was so overwhelming and so compelling that the renewed formation of separate black political organizations had very few advocates among Afro-Cubans following the triumph of the revolution.

        In the Cuban popular revolutionary struggle of 1868 to the present, something significant occurred, namely, the Cuban peoples became a single people.  Whether African or European blood flowed in their veins, all were actors in an historically and universally significant social process that dislodged from power those who were indifferent to the human needs of the people and who violated the dignity and sovereignty of the nation.  Cubans became, above all, Cuban, determined to defend at any price what they had sacrificed to attain.

       The contrasts of the Cuban experience with the United States are striking.  In reflecting on the contrasts, we ought to perhaps begin with the position of white Cubans, whose historic position was fundamentally different from that of whites in the United States.  Whites in the United States formed a settler society, and the great majority of whites economically benefitted, at least indirectly, from conquest, slavery, and the imperialist penetration of other lands.  But in Cuba, only the national bourgeoisie benefitted from neocolonial economic structures.  The white petit bourgeoisie and white workers and farmers found that the colonial and neocolonial situations restricted possibilities for the protection of their fundamental social and economic rights.  The great majority of Cuban whites, like Cuban blacks, had an economic interest in bringing colonialism and neocolonialism to an end.  Some members of the white middle class were confused by the ideological distortions; they cast their lot with the national bourgeoisie, allied with neocolonialism and international capital.  Some would become infamous as counterrevolutionaries in Miami, greatly influencing the US image of the triumphant Cuban Revolution.  But the colonial and neocolonial conditions of Cuba created something not seen in the United States, namely, a committed and informed radical petit bourgeoisie, which played an important role in leading a multiracial popular revolution against the (white controlled) neocolonial republic. In the United States during the period 1955 to 1972, white allies of the African-American movement turned out to be unreliable; in Cuba, by contrast, white students, professionals, workers and peasants became committed, reliable and even heroic allies of Afro-Cubans.  

    In the black experience in the United States, white racism is always present, either in a blatant or subtle form.  On the basis of this experience, one could look at Cuba with a model of racism, seeing racial inequality and white prejudice.  As with any social scientific model, there is an element of truth in this, and one can see signs of white prejudice and racial inequality, although much less than previously, and much less than in other nations.  But models shape what we see, and they can sometimes cause us to overlook profound truths.  In the black power period of 1966 to 1972 in the United States, black nationalist intellectuals formulated a colonial model, which sees racism as one dimension of colonial and neocolonial structures of domination, characterized by white control of the political, economic and cultural institutions of the communities and nations of the colonized.  The colonial model provides a more multidimensional and global vision of race relations in the United States and the neocolonial situation of Third World nations.  Seen from this colonial perspective, the Cuban Revolution, arriving to power through multiracial organization, and the African-American movement are allies in a common struggle.  Indeed, all of the colonized peoples of the world, including Latin Americans of various colors as well as the people of Ireland, are allies in a common anti-colonial struggle, and they all have formed movements that seek a more just, democratic and sustainable world. 

      The United States government discerns that revolutionary Cuba is a dangerous example and a threat to the neocolonial world-system.  It seeks to undermine the Cuban Revolution with various strategies, including seeking to discredit it with a model of white racism.  The white racist model is a useful tool for the declining hegemonic neocolonial power, for it represents white liberal reformism, as against the revolutionary transformation of fundamental structures of the European-dominated neocolonial world-system, which provides sustenance for racism in its various forms. 

​Key words:  race, Cuba, racism, colonialism, neocolonialism, Black Nationalism, colonial model, political organization

Posted April 19, 2016

     Socialist Cuba has many friends in the world, but it also has powerful enemies.  One of the strategies of Cuba’s enemies is to try to discredit Cuba with claims that the revolution denies the rights of Afro-Cubans or continues to be a racist or white-dominated society.  It is hard for me to imagine that such a campaign could sow division between blacks and whites in Cuba, because Cubans understand and appreciate the full commitment of the revolution to the full rights of Afro-Cubans, African-Americans, and the peoples and nations of Africa.  But it seems to me that the campaign is having some success in sowing doubts about the Cuban Revolution among African-Americans in the United States, who of course are not intimately familiar with the Cuban situation, and who may have a tendency to look at Cuba from the lens of their experiences in the United States and the model of white racism (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016).

      The discrediting campaign focuses on two issues.  The first is that of independent black agency in the form of separate black institutions. This issue is not debated in Cuba.  It was debated at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, as Abdul Alkalimat observes (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016).  But it is by now a resolved issue, because the Cuban popular revolution accomplished the taking of power through a strategy of multiracial organizations (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016).  But one of the strengths of the Cuban Revolution is its ability to listen to the voices of the people.  Accordingly, if this issue were to reemerge in the breast of the people, or of Afro-Cubans, the revolution would certainly seek to address it.  It would do so in a form that would ensure the unity of the people, for it is widely believed in Cuba that the unity of the people is necessary for the continued survival of the revolution.

     The second issue of the discrediting campaign is that of racial inequality, both income inequality and inequality in political power.  In Cuba today, it is well-understood that socialism is a process, and its goals cannot be fully attained overnight.  And there are some goals that are still not attained, fifty-seven years after the triumph of the revolution.  No one in Cuba thinks that socialist Cuba is, or can be, heaven on earth.

      There can be no reasonable doubt that the Cuban Revolution has taken decisive steps in support of the rights of Afro-Cubans.  The education of each Cuban child proceeds on basis of equal funding for all, regardless of race, class or gender; regardless of which urban neighborhood the child lives in; or whether he or she lives in the city or the country.  The historic invidious distinction between private and public education was abolished when the revolutionary government nationalized the Catholic schools, overwhelmingly white upper and middle class, and incorporated them into the public school system. Moreover, the difference that exists in the United States between poorly funded central city schools and suburban schools with higher tax bases does not exist in socialist Cuba.  I repeat, the Cuban revolution invests the same amount in the education of every Cuban child, from pre-school day care center to university graduate programs.  In addition, its system of education at the higher levels is integrally connected to structures of employment, so that as young Cubans earn diplomas and degrees, they can proceed to translate their education into professions and occupations.  And since 1959, there has been a full-fledged campaign calling upon employment without racial or gender discrimination.  No one thinks that old prejudices have completely disappeared, so this may not be fully realized in practice.  But to the extent that discrimination occurs, it is not systemic. 

     With respect to home ownership, the revolution nationalized privately-owned income-generating buildings and converted renters into property owners, allowing payments for the property at low prices and low rates of interest and with favorable terms.  Today, more than 90% of Cubans are home owners.  Some enemies of the revolution have tried to make an issue of the fact that, until recently, Cubans were prohibited from buying and selling property, omitting that most Cubans were homeowners as a result of a home distribution program, and the program was not undertaken with the intention that the beneficiaries sell the properties, thus facilitating the accumulation of property by a few.

      With respect to political power, the entire country is organized into voting districts, and the people nominate and elect candidates for the municipal assemblies, which in turn elect the deputies of the national assembly, which elects the executive branch.  The people also are organized in mass organizations of urban workers and professionals, agricultural workers, students, women and neighborhoods, the leadership of which is elected by the people.  To be sure, there is no black caucusing in this process.  Blacks, whites and mixed-race all participate with one another in this overlapping process of popular organization.  The mass organizations were organized on a multiracial basis in the 1960s, as a result of the overwhelming popular sentiment that this is the most effective strategy for empowering the people.

        All of these decisive revolutionary measures were “color blind.”  They were undertaken to benefit the people, without consideration of the race or color of the beneficiaries.  They clearly benefitted Afro-Cubans more than whites, since at the time of the triumph of the revolution, blacks were disproportionately represented among the poor, the marginally employed, the illiterate and the powerless.

      Fifty-seven years later, the success of this emancipatory educational-economic-political program is clear.  Exactly how successful is hard to measure, in part because racial classification is complex in Cuba, as a result of a high level of biological and cultural mixing.  But some have noted that the revolution perhaps has been more successful with respect to women than with respect to blacks.  As a result, there is beginning to emerge a discussion of the issue of racial inequality.  It may lead to an analysis of the reasons why the approach has not been more successful, and the identification of steps that should be taken to improve the situation.  Such analysis could possibly include reflection on appropriate pedagogical strategies for Afro-Cuban children and youth, perhaps giving even more emphasis to the role of Afro-Cubans in the revolutionary struggles and greater emphasis to African history and culture.  

        But such discussion of racial inequality has not attained a high priority among the Cuban people.  They are more concerned with bread and butter issues, and they do not tend to see these issues in racial terms.  Certain adjustment policies since the collapse of the Soviet Union have created more racial inequality, but it is also the case that they have created more inequality across the board, and that is how Cubans tend to perceive the problem.  Cubans speak of the need to ensure that the state continues to act decisively to protect the social and economic rights of all, and not permit that anyone be abandoned to his or her fate, as occurs in capitalist societies.  My sense is that any social program that supports blacks in need, but excludes whites equally in need, would be perceived in Cuba as unfair, and as therefore undermining the legitimacy of the revolution.

     The survival of the Cuban Revolution is in no sense guaranteed.  It continues to be under attack by powerful forces, including the Obama administration, which is undertaking a strategy of undermining the Cuban Revolution by creating a Cuban middle class with an interest in political change (see “Obama seeks to expand Cuban middle class” 3/24/2016).  The Obama administration also is attacking, using “soft power” imperialist strategies, Latin American revolutionary governments that have come to power in recent years and that have proclaimed “socialism for the twenty-first century” (see various posts in the category Venezuela and the new imperialist strategy).

     The social movements of the various peoples of the United States should be in solidarity with socialist Cuba and with progressive and socialist governments of Latin America and in opposition to US imperialist policies, as an important dimension of a struggle to create of a more just, democratic and sustainable world.  It seems to me that our solidarity could be more effective if, instead of focusing on the imperfections of these revolutions in the South, we were to seek to learn from them, appreciating that the peoples of Latin America are doing something that we in the United States have never been able to do, in that they have taken political power from the elite and have formed governments committed to the protection of the rights and needs of the people.  Inspired by their example, perhaps we could envision a popular coalition in the United States that takes political power and that adopts decisive steps in defense of our peoples, who have been exploited and abused in different ways, but whose dehumanization, in one form or another, is a generalized phenomenon.


Key words: race, Cuba, racism, racial inequality, socialism, imperialism

Posted April 21, 2016

​      Paul D’Amato, Editor of the International Socialist Review, in a 2007 article on “Race and Sex in Cuba,” maintains that Cuba does not represent true socialism (see “Who defines socialism?” 4/20/2016).  In accordance with this point of view, he focuses on the imperfections of Cuban society.

     D’Amato presents a portrait of a Cuba as far whiter and far more racist than the Cuba that I know.  He cites the 1981 Cuban census, indicating that the nation at that time was 66% white, 22% mestizo, and 12% black.  These figures are so inconsistent with visual scrutiny that one would think that there was an error, that the figures for whites and mulattos had been inverted.  Regardless of the figures, there is also the fact of the pervasive influence of African culture on the island, as is indicated by the significant extent to which persons of all colors indulge, somewhat superficially, in African religious practices; and by an historical consciousness that identifies slave rebellions (as well as indigenous resistance to the Spanish conquest) as precursors to a revolutionary process that was launched in 1868 when a slaveholder freed his slaves and called upon them to take up arms with him in opposition to Spanish colonialism.  I recall that on one occasion a Cuban leader, who looked more or less white, introduced his nation to my students, who were white, by referring to Cuba as an African-American nation. 

     Even more surprising was a 1995 study of three Havana neighborhoods, cited by D’Amato, that found racist attitudes among whites: 58% believed blacks to be less intelligent; and 68% were opposed to interracial marriage.  I have never heard anyone express such attitudes, and they are completely inconsistent with the prevailing consciousness among the people.  When on rare occasions people made comments that could be interpreted as prejudiced, they were casual cultural and social observations that were not offered as a justification for inequality or as implying that social investments that benefit Afro-Cubans should be eliminated.  In Cuba, it is assumed that the state has a moral obligation to act decisively to protect the social and economic rights of all, regardless of race or color. 

      In the United States, whites repeatedly are saying that their opinions on the role of government and on social issues have nothing to do with race, a denial that comes across as a ploy, conscience or not, for racism in a subtle form.  Cubans, however, truly do not think in racial terms, except as a skin color that is useful for descriptive purposes, similar to height or weight.  Currently there is, for example, public discussion of a lack of discipline at the workplace as well as a lack of revolutionary consciousness and work ethic among some youth.  These issues are not seen in terms of race.  They are understood as issues of popular culture, involving the daily habits and practices of people of all colors, and of the need for revolutionary transformation of certain characteristics of popular culture.

     D’Amato maintains that the Cuban Revolution argues that the issue of race has been completely resolved.  This is not the case.  The 1962 Second Declaration of Havana, which he cites in support of this claim, asserted that racial and gender discrimination in Cuba have been abolished.  The document did not intend to assert that all issues of race and gender had been fully resolved.  Indeed, it would have been absurd to maintain that a declaration could eliminate problems that were centuries in the making.  Let us recall the context of the time.  In the United States, the battles of Birmingham and Selma as well as the rebellions of Watts and Newark lay ahead, and the issue of gender equality was not included in public discourse.  In a world in conflict over these issues, Cuba was proclaiming its political will to fully implement civil, political, social and economic rights for all, regardless of race or gender.  The 1962 Declaration of Havana was not a propaganda ploy or a clever maneuver by a white leadership to bury reflection on the problem of race, as D’Amato implies.  The Declaration was a clear proclamation of commitment to fundamental principles, nothing more and nothing less, an affirmation enthusiastically and proudly supported by the people of all colors.  To treat it otherwise is to indulge in cynicism and to not see the simplicity and decency of the Cuban people; it is to attribute to them a capacity for cynical political manipulation that they do not possess.

    The concepts of institutional discrimination, symbolic racism and laissez-faire racism were developed in the United States in the post-1965 period, after the attainment of significant gains with respect to civil and political rights.  These concepts reflect the US racial context. White society had made concessions, but the great majority of whites did not arrive to understand and appreciate the African-American perspective on the American experience, the meaning of democracy, or the global structures of white domination.  As a result, most whites, although moving away from blatant forms of racism, continued to be racist in subtler ways, as was reflected in the unequivocal rejection by white society of black demands for decisive state action to protect the social and economic rights of all US citizens and for a more democratic foreign policy.  And it is reflected in the fact that the economic inequalities between blacks and whites are roughly the same today as they were prior to the civil rights gains of the 1960s.  But concepts formed in the US context should not be applied to Cuba, which in the same post-1960s era had a fundamentally different experience with respect to race.  

     In revolutionary Cuba, there was full commitment by the government and the people for the protection of the civil, political, social and economic rights of all; and blacks, mulattos and whites were participating together in the development of a national anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and anti-racist project.  No one thought that the issues of race were fully resolved, and no one used a false claim to this effect as a pretext for rejecting separate black organizations, as D’Amato claims.  Separate black organizations were rejected as a strategy because the Cuban experience of struggle had shown that interracial organizations were more effective, inasmuch as interracial organizations, and not separate black organizations, had brought down the dictator and had put power in the hands of the people (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016); because the separate black organizations that existed at the time of the triumph of the revolution were reactionary rather than progressive, and they did not participate in the overthrow of the dictator; because it seemed unnecessary to have black organizations, given full black participation in the popular organizations and popular power, and given that the revolution already possessed the political will to fully implement the rights of blacks; and because there was concern that separate black organizations would undermine the unity of the people, especially in a context in which powerful external enemies were prepared to exploit any possible division to bring the Cuban Revolution down.

      D’Amato argues that, with hindsight, the “color-blind” approach of the revolution and its emphasis on the unity of the people were erroneous, because problems of race still exist.  But such a claim is reasonable only if it were to be expected that a revolution after fifty years ought to have fully resolved a complex economic and cultural problem that had been centuries in the making.  The Cuban Revolution should be credited for its significant reductions in racial inequality with respect to income, education, and political empowerment.  Complete racial equality has not been attained, and this invites reflection on how a level of racial inequality could persist in the context of a society that is fully committed to the elimination of racial discrimination.  Such reflection is indeed beginning today, although other issues have a higher priority among the people, such as the satisfaction of material needs and the new imperialist strategy of the United States to finally bring the Cuban Revolution to an end.

     D’Amato’s highly selective discussion of race is rooted in his belief that Cuba is not socialist and that the Cuban Revolution does not have the characteristics that a socialist revolution ought to have.  But what should a socialist revolution in a neocolonized underdeveloped Caribbean nation look like?  This will be the subject of our next post.


Key words: race, Cuba, racism, prejudice, racial inequality, socialism

Posted April 22, 2016

     In “Race and Sex in Cuba,” published in the International Socialist Review in 2007, Paul D’Amato maintains that the Cuban revolution is a nationalist revolution but not a socialist revolution.  He finds that racial and gender oppression continues in Cuba, a consequence of the fact that it is not a truly socialist revolution (see “Who defines socialism?” 4/20/2016; “Racial inequality in Cuba” 4/21/2016).

      Imperfect though it is when examined from the viewpoint of classic European socialism, the triumphant Cuban Revolution nonetheless would capture the imagination of the colonized peoples of the world, who see in it a persistent and heroic spirit of independence.  It does not look like anything like the classic Marxist projection.  It would be lead not by a working class vanguard, but by the son of a Spanish immigrant landholder who was educated in Catholic schools; and who believed profoundly in the vision of a free Cuba articulated by the Cuban revolutionary José Martí, a well-read and cultured political exile who had not read Marx.  Fidel read on his own the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, appreciating their insights, but freely appropriating in a form adapted to the Cuban neocolonial situation.  And the Cuban Revolution also would be led by a fiercely committed medical doctor from Argentina, whose sojourn of Latin American lands had taught him of the common suffering and necessary political unity of the peoples who formed La Patria Grande of Bolívar, and whose distrust of imperialist governments was as deep as his love for the suffering people.  The Cuban Revolution would be formed by a humble people, whose very humility compelled them to lift up Fidel and Che, endowing them with a teaching authority surpassing even that of Lenin and Mao, and not known to humanity since Mohammed.  And the Cuban Revolution would come to power, not through the patient educating and organizing practices of the Cuban communist party, but in an unconventional guerrilla war that moved from the country to the city, led by a lawyer and a doctor who were connected, in mind and soul, to the hopes and sufferings of the people.

     Once in power, the Cuban revolutionary leadership took decisive steps in defense of the people and the nation and against the interests of the national bourgeoisie and foreign corporations.  It nationalized agricultural and industrial properties; and it adopted measures that raised workers’ wages and reduced the costs of housing and utilities. It declared the socialist character of the revolution two years after its triumph, as it prepared for a US-backed invasion by a force formed by counterrevolutionaries who had left the country, including members of the national bourgeoisie, the military forces of the deposed dictator, and the reactionary wing of the middle class.  The revolutionary leadership called upon the people to defend with arms their socialist revolution, and the people did so; the counterrevolutionary invasion force surrendered en masse in seventy-two hours.

     The Cuban revolutionary people, now emancipated, would express all of the characteristics that were uniquely theirs.  They would be proud of their coming together as blacks, whites and mulattos in the casting aside of old racial prejudices; but with awareness of the status designations that reign in the world, they would describe themselves as lighter than they actually are.  They would affirm equality between the sexes, but they would cling to traditional gender roles.  They would be inclined to be respectful toward all, but would find homosexuality difficult to understand.  They would be committed to science, and they would participate in the creation of the finest medical system in the world; yet they would be persistent in believing that medical cures require the participation of African saints.  They would possess a tremendous spirit of internationalism and international solidarity; yet they would wave their own Cuban flag with great patriotism, and they would listen to their national anthem with reverence.  They would create symphony orchestras that would play the works of the European masters; but they would spontaneously sing and dance to their own music, in tune with their vibrant sexuality and African rhythms.  They would be committed to work and study, but equally committed to family obligations and to the need for regular celebratory festivities rooted in the family and family-like friendships.  Cuban women would take the lead in forging the new society, claiming for themselves positions in science, education, health, and political leadership; but these same women would teach their sons to be macho, teach their daughters to dress in sexually provocative ways, play verbal sexual games with men, and insist that the management of the home remains their particular domain.  

      They are a modest people, not at all arrogant.  They are aware that they are a poor people of a small nation, and that they have imperfections.  But they are a proud people.  Informed of global dynamics, they are aware that their modest achievements have universal human significance.  They see that the colonized peoples of the world are inspired by their achievements, and they are ready to provide support, when asked.  They hope that the powerful nations of the North will see their good qualities and will trade with them as equals, so that they can continue to develop.  They offer their modest example to the world, with love and solidarity, and with hope for the future of humanity.  They see themselves as participating in a step-by-step process in which the movements formed by humanity are constructing a just, democratic and sustainable world, saving humanity from imminent self-destruction.  They have absolutely no doubt that the revolution they are forging is both a nationalist and a socialist revolution.

      Although the Cuban Revolution does not look like anything that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky envisioned, it was in a sense foreseen by the great masters.  For they intuitively sensed that the socialist revolution would be forged in practice by the people, and that it would be led by exceptional leaders who were sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of their own people, and who would lead them to new levels of human achievement, with the people moving in their own way, in accordance with their own rhythm and unique characteristics.

       I have come to appreciate the Cuban Revolution as a gift to the world.  Some would say that it is a gift from God, seeking to instruct us in the way, the truth and the light; for like the prophets Moses and Amos, it denounces the pretensions of the global powers, and it defends the rights of the poor.  But it fulfills the prophetic role in an historical epoch in which the peoples of the world have demonstrated their capacity to form movements in their defense, precisely at a time when such movements are necessary to save humanity.  The Cuban Revolution reveals the word of God not by being perfect, for it is full of human imperfections; but in its best sons and daughters, who today, fifty-seven years after its triumph, form an educated and committed vanguard, exemplifying the essential dignity of the human species.

     We who form the peoples of the North can reject the Cuban Revolution as not consistent with a classic vision of Marxism.  We can focus on its imperfections, discrediting it, in service of those powerful forces that seek to destroy this dangerous example and to preserve their privileges in the world-system, unaware that the world-system itself is unsustainable.  Or we can take a different path.  We can appreciate it, learn from it, and permit ourselves to be inspired by it, seeking to develop in our own nations our own versions of it, so that we can participate in what has become a great social movement formed by humanity in defense of itself.


Key words:  Cuba, race, gender, socialism, revolution