​      The generation that led the revolutionary triumph in Cuba on January 1, 1959 were the heirs to a historic revolutionary struggle for national independence and social transformation, initiated in 1868, which had formulated an advanced political thought on the basis of a synthesis of concepts emerging from the Cuban struggle for national liberation with revolutionary theories from Western Europe, Russia, and Latin America.  They forged an anti-neocolonial revolution that was led by the radical wing of the petit bourgeoisie and by an exceptional leader.  They have demonstrated a remarkable political intelligence, marked by an intimate knowledge and respect for the people, and a capacity to adopt strategies that are adjusted to changing and challenging conditions (see “The social sources of revolutionary leadership” 4/22/2019).
 
     During their six decades in power, they have been attentive to the question of the transition of leadership in two senses: transition from individual charismatic leadership to leadership by a vanguard political party; and the passing of leadership to subsequent generations.  The transition of leadership in both senses is to considerable extent complete.  The State and the Party have been developed as separate institutions with complementary roles.  The highest positions in the State are elected by the people in a system of direct and indirect elections; whereas Party membership is self-selected, with leaders elected by members.  The State and principle social institutions are in the hands of leaders born after the triumph of the Revolution.  The Party remains in the hands of the generation of the Revolution at the highest level, with subsequent generations holding various positions of authority at various levels. 
 
     In recent years, the Party has dedicated itself to the development of the new Constitution, with the intention of building a solid statutory foundation for the policies and social changes of the past thirty years, which also would provide a constitutional guide for the future.  Based on 150 years of struggle and on the revolutionary practice and theoretical development of the last six decades, the new Constitution can be seen as the final will and testament of the generation of the Revolution.
 
     The new Cuban constitution was proclaimed by Raúl Castro on April 10, 2019, at the Second Extraordinary Session of the Ninth Legislature of the National Assembly of Popular Power.
Miguel Díaz-Canel, since his election as President of the Council of State and Ministers by the National Assembly of Popular Power on April 19, 2018, as been more visible than Raúl at affairs of state and public events.  However, Raúl, General Secretary of the Communist Party, was assigned the duty of proclaiming the new constitution, inasmuch as the Party has been the guiding force behind the new constitution.
 
       Cuban revolutionary leaders have created a custom in which political leaders, mass organization leaders, journalists, professionals, and public figures provide pedagogical public discourses, constantly striving to educate the people in historical and social consciousness.  In accordance with this custom, Raúl pointed out that the new Constitution is rooted in past Cuban constitutions, and especially important were the constitutions of 1869, 1940, and 1975.  The Constitution of the Republic in Arms of April 10, 1869, he explained, proclaimed the independence of Cuba from Spain and the objective of unity on a basis of recognition of the equality of all.  During the neocolonial republic, the Constitution of 1940 emerged in the context of an opening established by the international situation of a world struggle against fascism, which enabled the active participation in the Constitutional Assembly of delegates with progressive ideas, including the participation of the first Communist Party of Cuba.  The result was a constitution advanced for its time, which included the proclamation of social and economic rights; the rejection of discrimination for reasons of race, color, or sex; a limit of the working day to eight hours; and the prohibition of large-scale agricultural estates.  He noted that many of these postulates were not implemented, because the necessary complementary laws were not implemented.
 
      He stressed that the Republic of 1902-1958 was a U.S. neocolony, with Cuban sovereignty subordinated to the interests of the USA.  U.S. imperialist intervention in 1898, he observed, robbed victory from the victorious military campaign of the Army of Liberation, preventing a true independence that would have established a progressive and democratic republic.  The progressive Constitution of 1940, never implemented, was nullified by the Batista coup d’état of March 10, 1952.
 
      Raúl noted that on February 7, 1959, the Revolutionary Government promulgated the Fundamental Law, which was based on the Constitution of 1940.  However, the Revolutionary Government modified the 1940 Constitution by establishing its Council of Ministers as the highest legislative and executive body, and with authority to interpret the constitution.  Raul observed that it could not have been done in any other way.  It was a choice between, on the one hand, interrupting the revolutionary process in order to concentrate on the making of a new constitution; or on the other hand, proceeding forward in accordance with what was already decided by the leadership with the overwhelming support of the people.
 
     In retrospect, we can see the wisdom of the course of action taken by the Revolutionary Government in 1959.  If a constitutional assembly had been convened, many issues would have been debated, but the participants would not have had the experiential basis for their ideas.  The revolution was just beginning, as Fidel had proclaimed on January 1.  Many experiences lay ahead:  the Agrarian Reform Law, and the hostile reaction to it on the part of the U.S. government and the Cuban national bourgeoisie; the nationalizations of U.S. property; the sabotage of production by the Cuban industrial bourgeoisie, and its increasing participation in the counterrevolution; the nationalizations of Cuban large-scale industrial, commercial, and banking enterprises; the organization of mass assemblies, an alternative to the structures of representative democracy; the development of mass organizations, which came to be seen as integral to an alternative concept of popular democracy;  and the proclamation of the socialist character of the revolution on the eve of an invasion by Cuban counterrevolutionaries financed and supplied by the U.S. government.  All of these experiences of the leadership and the people in forging ahead with the revolutionary process became the basis for reflection on an alternative constitutionality, in which the issues could be debated with greater maturity, established through experience.  It was a question of revolutionary practice first, which provided the foundation for an alternative theory and revolutionary constitutionality. 
 
      Raúl observed that in 1975, in his report to the First Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, Fidel proclaimed the need to develop a socialist constitution, which reflects the consciousness, convictions, and the social-economic-political transformations of the revolutionary process.  The result was the Constitution of 1976, developed with an ample popular consultation and approved overwhelmingly in popular referendum, which reaffirmed the socialist character of the Revolution; provided a constitutional foundation of the rights that had been attained through the revolutionary process; and established an alternative system of popular democracy, based on the experiences of the mass assemblies and mass organizations.
 
       Raúl further explained that developments in recent years in Cuba made necessary a new Constitution, and especially important were new economic policies developed in response to the need to improve production.  In 2011, the Sixth Congress of the Party approved Guidelines for the Social and Economic Policy of the Party and the Revolution.  The Party led the people in a popular consultation, and presented the modified guidelines to the National Assembly, which approved them.  The Seventh Congress of the Party in 2016 developed documents for a Cuban Social and Economic Model of Socialist Development.  Recognizing the constitutional implications of the Guidelines and the Model, the Party expressed the need for the development of a new constitution. 
 
      On June 2, 2018, the National Assembly approved the establishment of a Constitutional Commission composed 33 deputies of the National Assembly, naming Raúl as chair of the Commission.  On July 22, after various sessions of debate, the National Assembly approved a draft of the text for submission to the people.  From August 13 to November 15, some 133,681 meetings were held in places of residence, work, and study, in which 1,706,872 commentaries were made (all noted by members of the Constitutional Committee), and 783,174 specific proposals were made; thereby converting the entire people into a constitutional assembly.  On the basis of analysis of the popular consultation, the Commission modified nearly 60% of the articles of the first draft.  Following an analysis, debate, and further revision of the text, the National Assembly approved a draft for popular referendum.  On February 24, some 90.15% of resident citizens voted in the referendum, of which 86.85% voted Yes, 9% voted No, and 4.15% submitted invalid ballots.  (For further description of the constitutional process in Cuba, see various posts from January 9, 2019 to February 26, 2019 in this category Cuba Today).
 
      Raúl maintained that the new Constitution assures the continuity of the Cuban Revolution and the irrevocability of socialism.  It expresses the aspirations of those who have struggled for 150 years for a sovereign Cuba, characterized by social justice.  At the same time, it reflects the new historic circumstances of the Revolution, and it reflects the current aspirations of the people to attain a socialism that is increasingly prosperous, sustainable, inclusive, and participatory.  He asserts that as the USA renews its old desire to overthrow the Cuban Revolution through the suffocating of the economy and the creation of shortages, the U.S. administration should understand the unshakable determination of Cuba to defend its sovereign right to decide the future of the nation, without any foreign interference.
 
      The generation of the Revolution, a product of a historic struggle, has fulfilled its duty, to the nation, to the people, to humanity, and to the future.

     The generation of leaders that took political power in Cuba on January 1, 1959 were known as the centenarians, because of their determination to take political action in 1953, the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of José Martí, in order to show that the ideas of the apostle remained alive, in spite of the corruption of the neocolonial republic and the Batista dictatorship.  The July 26, 1953 armed attack on Moncada Barracks galvanized the people, and it gave the authors of that heroic action the right to claim leadership of a popular struggle against the dictatorship and the established neocolonial order.  Unable to forget the maneuverings and intrigues that had blocked revolutionary triumphs in three moments in Cuban history, they possessed a singular determination that, this time, the revolution will not be frustrated.
 
     They took power on January 1, 1959 amidst enormous popular acclaim, on the basis of a guerrilla struggle that moved from the mountains to the cities, forcing the dictator to flee the country.  In their first two years in power, the young leaders of the revolution took decisive steps that would demonstrate its anti-neocolonial intention, culminating in a declaration of its socialist character.  For more than six decades, they guided the people through various stages, but with constancy in commitment to basic principles: the commitment of resources to the social and economic needs of the people on a basis of full equality, regardless of class, race, or gender; and an international projection of commercial relations, political alliance, and solidarity with the socialist governments and neocolonized nations and peoples.  In order to ensure that political power remained in the hands of the delegates of the people, they developed alternative structures of popular democracy, characterized by mass assemblies, mass organizations, assemblies of popular power, a vanguard political party, and a public media attentive to the political education of the people. 
 
     There are many subjective and objective factors that create possibilities for an advanced generation of leaders to emerge in a particular time and place.  In observing advanced and sustained revolutionary processes, a common characteristic is the phenomenon of a generalized popular identification with the nation and a self-sacrificing commitment to its defense.  In the case of Cuba, nationalist consciousness emerged during the nineteenth century, forged by Cuban intellectuals of the Seminary of San Carlos in Havana.  They synthesized religious concepts of social justice with modern republican notions in standing against colonial Spain and the Spanish monarchy.  They initiated an awakening of consciousness among the Cuban privileged class that represented an alternative to subordination to Spain and envisioned a secular and progressive republic, with modern systems of production, moving beyond economic dependence on slavery.  Formed by these progressive notions, the Cuban landholders that declared independence in 1868 were able to discern the necessity of forging not only the independence of the nation, but also a national social transformation that would eliminate the social inequalities rooted in colonialism.  However, as a result of class, regional, civilian/military, and ideological differences and divisions, the war of independence of 1868-1878 ended without attaining independence or the abolition of slavery. 
 
       The vision of the 1868 revolution of a sovereign and socially transformed nation has guided Cuban revolutionary practice since that date, but continually evolving.  Reflecting on the failure of the War of Independence of 1868-1878, José Martí was able to see the importance of politically unifying all the popular sectors, on the basis of a promise to establish a republic of all and for all, regardless of race or class, and implicitly, gender.  The outstanding writer, poet, journalist, and diplomat politically implemented his vision, forming in 1892 the Cuban Revolutionary Party, which launched a war of independence in 1895.  However, the 1898 U.S. military intervention prevented the taking of power by the militarily victorious Cuban Army of Liberation.  The revolutionary army, party, and congress were dismantled, and the 1901 constitution had a “Made in the USA” character.  The republic of all and for all, as envisioned by Martí, was eclipsed by the neocolonial republic, and U.S. economic, commercial, and financial penetration was unleashed. 
 
      Twenty years later, reflecting on the neocolonial situation, and influenced by the examples of the Russian and Mexican revolutions, a new generation of revolutionaries emerged to struggle against the Machado dictatorship of the 1920s and early 1930s, synthesizing revolutionary currents of thought from other lands with the thought of Martí, and making more explicit the inclusion of women in the revolutionary process.  Sustained popular protests against the Machado dictatorship combined with urban sabotage and armed struggle in the countryside brought down the Machado government and led to the formation in 1933 of the “government of 100 days,” which included a revolutionary wing and was established without U.S. approval.  However, the short-lived independent government was brought to an end by U.S. mediation, leading to the first Batista dictatorship of 1934-1937.
 
     In the twenty years following the fall of the Revolution of 1933, disillusionment and fatalism prevailed among the people, but the soul of the nation hope was kept alive by intellectuals, social scientists, poets, and artists, who studied Cuban culture and the multifaceted work of Martí, and who reminded the people of the revolutionary ideal that was central to the Cuban sense of nationality.  The revolutionaries who came of age in the 1950s were made of the stuff that inclined them toward the dreams of the poets, rather than the seemingly more practical conclusion that the republic of Martí was impossible.  Martí himself had said that the task was to make possible what appeared impossible.  To the radical Cuban youth of the 1950s, the republic of Martí did not seem so impractical.  They were aware of the enormous reserve of revolutionary spirit among the people, who were the heirs to an advanced political thought and a history of political/military resistance.  They discerned the possibility of galvanizing the popular revolutionary spirit through decisive, bold, and courageous action, calling the people to the defense of national honor and dignity.  Theirs was an idealism guided by an intimate knowledge of the people and a practical political intelligence. 
 
      The neocolonial situation is defined by a pattern of betrayal of the nation through subordination to the interests of a foreign neocolonial power, and in this national debasement of the soul, the national bourgeoisie and the dominant political class are the most culpable.  Political leaders and government officials become habituated to using their positions to enrich themselves, having abandoned a dignified and purposeful road at the outset of their careers.  In Cuba in the 1950s, the indignity of the neocolonial situation never had been more evident.  Corrupt politicians invoked the ideals of Martí, thus corrupting the revolutionary vision itself.  To this national pattern of corruption, the Batista dictatorship added the disgrace of political repression, torture, and brutality.  And the visible presence of the Italian-American mafia, with its gambling and prostitution, compounded the national shame.
 
      In popular revolutions, the middle class is disproportionately represented in the revolution as well as in the counterrevolution that it unleashes.  Therefore, the possibilities for revolution are influenced by the conditions that the middle class confronts.  In the case of Cuba, the neocolonial situation, with political control by a figurehead bourgeoisie, created conditions unfavorable for the middle class.  As a result of the subordination of Cuban industry and commerce to U.S. capital, middle-class aspirations for advancement required an undignified accommodation to a foreign nation and culture.  As a result of generalized corruption, small business persons were overburdened with debt and harassed by corrupt government officials.  Reflecting the disconnection of education from economic development, young people with professional degrees found their opportunities for employment limited. 
 
      Accordingly, university students took a central role in the leadership of the revitalized revolution in the 1950s.  University students had the privileged opportunity to reflect on the conditions of the neocolonial republic; and those informed by the Cuban tradition of revolutionary and political thought could envision the republic of Martí.  The most politically astute among them could discern that, on the basis of a platform that would seek to address the desperate economic and social conditions of the countryside, an effective political-military alliance could be forged with the great mass of tenant farmers and agricultural workers.  This radicalized sector of the petit bourgeoisie played a central leadership role in the revolutionary process, and it is impossible to imagine the triumph of the revolution without them.
 
     It is equally impossible to imagine the triumph and persistence of the Cuban Revolution without the presence of Fidel.  To understand the successes of the revolution, we have to appreciate the exceptional capacity of Fidel to understand the correct course of action in pivotal moments: the creation of an anti-Batista coalition that included reformist sectors in 1958; the inclusion of representatives of the national bourgeoisie in the initial revolutionary government, creating the possibility for the inclusion of an independent national bourgeoisie in the revolutionary project; the necessity for the nationalization of U.S. properties in Cuba in order to break the core-peripheral neocolonial relation with the USA; the breaking with the national bourgeoisie through the nationalization of Cuban big industry, once the Cuban figurehead bourgeoisie demonstrated its incapacity to remake itself as an independent national bourgeoisie, not tutored by U.S. capital; the development of alternatives to representative democracy in the form of structures of popular democracy, including mass assemblies, a vanguard political party, mass organizations, and popular power; the seeking of Third World unity in working toward the establishment of a New International Economic Order, providing exceptional analyses of the contradictions of the unsustainable capitalist world-economy; the making of the necessary adjustments of the Special Period, redefining the revolutionary road in the context of new conditions; and at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the participation of Cuba in the process of Latin American unity and integration.   However, as the history of Cuban revolutionary movement makes evident, Fidel was not nurtured in a political vacuum; he was formed in a historical and social context shaped by revolutionary thought and political praxis.
 
      The emergence of charismatic leaders is a general pattern in revolutionary processes.  One cannot imagine the Haitian Revolution without Toussaint, the Russian Revolution without Lenin, the Chinese Revolution without Mao, the Vietnamese Revolution without Ho Chi Minh, and the Bolivarian Revolution with Chávez.  The emergence of charismatic leaders is indispensable in revolutionary processes, not only because their exceptional capacity to understand is itself an important resource for the revolution, but also because the leaders and the people discern these exceptional gifts, thus empowering the charismatic leader with the capacity to unify the various and sometimes contradictory tendencies within the revolutionary process.  At the same time, we also should appreciate that charismatic leadership emerged in a social and historic context, and it is formed and shaped by this context, as the case of Cuba makes evident.  In general, charismatic leaders have the capacity to lead the revolutionary process to a move advanced stage, even as they affirm and identify with the previous revolutionary achievements.
 
     The Cuban Revolution is presently in a process of transition from charismatic individual leadership to vanguard party leadership.  For more than five decades, Raúl Castro served as a second-in-command to the charismatic leader, substituting for Fidel when, for one reason or another, Fidel could not be present.  Raúl has assumed this substitute role on a relatively permanent basis in 2009, when Fidel step down as head of state for reasons of health.  In 2018, a further step in the transition was taken, when Miguel Díaz-Canel was elected President of the Council of State and Ministers by the National Assembly of Popular Power, while Raúl continues as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba.  Since his election, Díaz-Canel has been the more visible of the two, as he carries out his duties as head of state. 
 
     As the transition proceeds, many of the generation of the revolution continue to be present, fulfilling various duties in the state, the party, or various institutions.  Among the tasks that they have assigned themselves in recent years has been the development of a new constitution, so that the people and the nation will have a guide for the future.  It is their final will and testament, as we will discuss further in the next post.

​     Some believe that the cycle of Leftist governments in Latin America, evident during the last twenty years, has come to an end.  They point to the 2014 parliamentary victory of the opposition in Venezuela, and the current conflicts and problems in that country; the victory of Macri in Argentina; the inability of the Alliance Party to maintain the agenda of Correa in Ecuador; and the fall of the Workers’ Party and the subsequent electoral victory of the ultra-Right in Brazil. 
 
    Those who believe that the Leftist cycles has come to an end are likely to think that blog posts that I wrote in 2014 are overly optimistic, and that their excessive optimism is demonstrated by recent political developments in Latin America.  In March 2014, I wrote a series of ten posts on the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity and integration (“The dream of ​La Patria Grande” 3/4/2014; “The dream deferred” 3/5/2014; “The dream renewed” 3/6/2014; “The fall of FTAA” 3/7/2014; “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014; “Latin American union and integration” 3/13/2014; “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014; “The erosion of neocolonialism” 3/17/2014; “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; “Is Marx today fulfilled?” 3/20/2014, found in the category Latin American Unity).
 
     In these posts, I maintained that the process of Latin American and Caribbean union and integration is part of an effort emerging from the Third World plus China, with the cooperation of Russia, to construct an alternative, more just world-system.  In “A change of epoch?” (March 18, 2014), I wrote:

    I maintained that the alternative process is based in fundamental principles and values that have been formulated by the popular movements of the world in the last two and one-half centuries, including the bourgeois revolutions, the socialist and communist movements, the Third World movements of national liberation, the women’s movement, and the ecology movement.  The alternative process is formulating the universal human values that must be the foundation of a just, democratic, and sustainable world-system, necessary for preventing humanity from fall further into chaos, division, and confusion.
 
     A later post (“OAS: Transformed from below” June 10, 2014 in the category Latin American Unity) was stimulated by the Forty-Fourth General Assembly of OAS held in Asunción, Paraguay from June 3 to June 5, 2014.  I noted the repeated interventions by the representatives protesting the exclusion of Cuba from the Summit of the Americas; and the declarations emitted by the Assembly in support of Venezuela and Argentina.  And I observed that the Paraguay Assembly reaffirmed the CELAC Declaration of Havana, proclaiming Latin America and Caribbean to be a zone of peace; and it condemned torture in secret prisons at the US base in Guantanamo.  The Paraguay Assembly reconfirmed that the OAS is no longer under the control of US interests.
 
      I would like to affirm that I continue to believe that the alternative, more just world-system is being constructed from below, and that there are many objective reasons for believing that a more just and democratic world-system has a good possibility of coming into being.  In defense of this claim, I make the following arguments.
 
     First, the road to triumph is never a straight line.  There are always setbacks and reverses, even as conditions favor the continued movement forward of the revolutionary process.  That such is the general pattern is evident upon study of the various revolutions that have triumphed in various countries of the world during the last 100 years.  The recent setbacks in the four mentioned nations had different dynamics in each case; they do not reflect a general pattern, other than that interested sectors will resist change.  In Venezuela, the prominence of the Right in the import trade sector enabled it to block the importation of goods, blaming the government for the shortage; and the United States is waging unconventional war.  In Argentina, Macri made vague promises of change, taking advantage a normal pattern of some degree of popular dissatisfaction following four terms of Kirchner governments.  In Ecuador, a Trojan Horse captured the Alliance Party nomination.  And in Brazil, the coalition of the Workers’ Party fell apart, enabling false charges of corruption against Workers’ Party leaders, provoking the rise of the ultra-Right.
 
     Secondly, there are not cycles in history, but more precisely, cyclical rhythms.  When we experience setback, we do not go back to where we were.  In the Latin American struggle against imperialism and for its sovereignty, for example, the recent setbacks in the four mentioned nations have regional manifestations.  A group of Latin American nations, the “Group of Lima,” joined the United States in recent efforts to adopt actions against Venezuela.  Clearly, this represents a reversal from the political situation of 2014, when the voice of Latin American independence was unchallenged in the General Assembly of OAS.  However, in the recent Extraordinary Session of the OAS, the forces of reaction could not obtain a majority.  So, if 2018 is not 2014, neither is it 1954, when OAS declared communism illegitimate in Latin America; nor 1962, when Cuba was expelled from OAS; nor 1992, when a new anti-Cuban resolution was adopted.  In 2018, the United States could not obtain backing for a declaration against the “evil nation” of the moment, a nation that, like Cuba, is sanctioned for its audacity to insist, in word and in deed, on its right to an autonomous road, seeking to break from neocolonial structures.
 
      Thirdly, we have to look at things in the long term.  Clearly, in the short term, especially at this moment in which the government of the United States is under partial control of ultra-Right elements, the United States is capable of doing much damage in Latin America.  However, we have to keep in mind that none of the sectors of the U.S. power elite, from liberal to Right to ultra-Right, have the capacity to formulate solutions to the relative economic decline of the nation or the sustained structural crisis of the world-system.  They can only create more problems.  They could, of course, lead humanity to chaos, but they also are making their incapacity more and more evident, thus granting increasing legitimacy to the alternative theory and practice emerging from below.
 
       Fourthly, what is likely to happen from here?  The US-directed Latin American Right is incapable of forging a program that could project it to a consolidated position of power, on the basis of consensual popular support.  It does not have an effective political response to the post-1995 popular revolution.  Its intention is to restore the hegemony of US capital and the dominance of those national sectors tied to it; it wants to return to neoliberal recipes.  This is evident in the policies adopted by the governments of Brazil and Argentina, under the restored Right.  They enacted an unannounced return to neoliberalism, and their measures provoked popular protest.  The problem with these governments is that want to enact a program that the people already have rejected, and that the people have arrived to sufficient political maturity to know to reject.  If the forces of reaction cannot be more politically creative, they will not be able to sustain themselves in power, which would require the formulation of some kind of post-neoliberal and post-socialist political program that would have popular support.  I do not know what such a program would look like, and apparently, neither do they.  It indeed may be beyond human capacities for creativity to conceptualize a such a program, taking into account that the road being forged by the socialist/progressive governments was the necessary response to neoliberalism, when analyzed from the vantage point of the needs of the people and the sovereignty of the nation.
 
     Fifthly, the affirmation of the good possibility of a sustainable future for humanity is a moral duty.  One of the principal teachings of Fidel is that the revolutionary must never surrender to despair, and most continually affirm the possibility of a world that is founded in universal human values.  “No one has the right,” he repeatedly declared, “to lose faith in the future of humanity.”  Sometimes, when Leftist academics say, “I wish that a better, more just world were possible, but unfortunately it is not possible,” they are reflecting not so much an objective analysis of the situation, but their own adaptation to unjust structures, which has become a bad habit during the course of their careers.  Not believing in the future of humanity is a convenient form of making peace with the established unjust world order.
 
      For further reflection on these themes, see “Venezuela and world-systemic tendencies” (3/8/2016) in the category Venezuela.

      I recently had the opportunity to see Spike Lee’s 2018 film, Black Klansman.  The film appeared on Espectador Crítico, a weekly Cuban television program that presents high-quality films.  The moderator of the program, Magda Rezik, precedes the viewings with fifteen-minute interviews with a specialist on the theme.  In this case, the specialist was a professor at the University of Havana, knowledgeable about the history of the Ku Klux Klan.
 
      The film provides an excellent portrayal of the black power discourse of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.  It makes clear the logic and the socio-psychological need of the black power perspective.  Responding to the systemic dehumanizing by white America, in which the most basic of human rights were denied, the black power perspective affirmed black identity and the worth of the black community; and on a political plane, it stressed unity in order to attain power, necessary for defense of black rights and interests. 
 
      In addition, the film’s accurate portrayal of black power discourse makes evident two limitations of the black power perspective.  First, the perspective tends to treat whites in general as an oppressing power.  This is a misreading of American society, past and present.  It is true that the powerful are white, except for a few blacks that adapt to the white power structure; but it is also true that most whites are not powerful. 
 
     Secondly, the black power discourse had a tendency toward violent rhetoric that was inconsistent with the actual political project of black nationalist organizations.  Spike Lee has Stokely Carmichael saying that blacks must prepare themselves for a coming race war, in which the brothers and sisters will be killing white racist cops.  This is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the black leader.  In a Mississippi march in 1966, Carmichael declared, “every courthouse in the state should be burnt down.”  In Cleveland, he asserted, “When you talk about black power, you talk about bringing this country to its knees.”  His successor as president of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, H. Rap Brown, described an incident in Alabama as a “declaration of war” by “racist white America,” and he called for a “full retaliation of the black community across America.”  However, in fact, neither the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee nor the Black Panther Party developed any program of sabotage against government buildings or assassination of white police or other white officials.  These brash and ill-advised statements were in no sense promoting a program, and they functioned only to provide a pretext for repression by the government, which was unleased against black organizations and leaders in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
 
     The film also has an excellent portrayal of the discourse of white supremacists.  The characterization at times appears to be a caricature, but indeed there is a current of thought in white society that believes that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and that race-mixing would destroy the nation.  The facts, of course, are otherwise.  Scientific research shows that differences in skin color are a consequence of individual humans living in different geographical zones with different levels of exposure to the sun, and that differences in skin color has no relation to intelligence or other human capacities.  And the film correctly shows the post-1965 reformulation of the white supremacist views into a more socially acceptable ideology that would attain increasing influence, culminating in the election of Trump.
 
      The film had a balanced portrayal of white cops.  One cop was a racist thug, some cops were racists, some were inclined to lend their support to the black cop in his undercover investigation of the Klan, and one was committed to doing the right thing.  One suspects that this is truly the case.  There was a suggestion at the end that white folks could avoid the racial conflict and stand off to the side, if they were so inclined; whereas blacks could not possibly avoid the American racial conflict, for it continually intruded on their reality.  There is some truth to this, especially at the personal level in the short term.  But in the final analysis, no citizen of the United States can avoid the contradictions that the nation confronts, which have deep historic roots; the nation itself is in peril.
 
     No film can provide a comprehensive view of a nation for a half a century, and Lee’s film is no exception.  The black community is represented in the film by black panthers and a black cop; white society is represented by white racists and white cops.  But there are, of course, whole sectors of the black community and of white society that do not pertain to these categories. 
 
      The sectors not portrayed in the film, especially their failures, have been central to the unfolding racial dynamics of the United States since 1965.  White society in general never listened to or understood the black movement, even as it hesitantly and reluctantly conceded basic civil and political rights in 1964 and 1965.  As a result of not listening, white society never understood that the movement demanded and expected more than political and civil rights.  Since its origin in 1917, the African-American movement had protested the poverty and social and economic underdevelopment of the black community, which it understood as caused by slavery and decades of segregation and the denial of basic civil rights.  The movement thus embraced the principle of the social and economic rights of all citizens, and it called for the economic and social development of the black community.  At the same time, by virtue of its interest in its African historical and cultural connection, the African-American movement from the beginning had a global perspective from below.  It could discern the colonialist and imperialist character of U.S. foreign policy, which promoted the underdevelopment of the peoples of the world, thereby contradicting the proclaimed democratic values of the nation.  Both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were eloquent in proclaiming these principles of community development, the protection of social and economic rights, and a democratic foreign policy, historic demands of the movement.  But white society was deaf to such proclamations for a more just and democratic nation and world, and it believed that the social debt was paid merely by moving to the protection of political and civil rights.  Such deafness with respect to persons of other social positions is ethnocentric, and it is common in human societies; it is different from racism, a belief in the inferiority of other so-called races.
 
      Coinciding with white deafness, the black community since 1965 has failed to promote the unfinished agenda of the African-American movement of 1917 to 1965.  It has remained trapped in a white racist frame of reference, discerning subtle forms in which white racism survives in the post-1965 era.  This is certainly true, and indeed, the common phenomenon of white ethnocentrism could be interpreted as a subtle form of racism.  But it is politically dysfunctional to focus on it.  It would be more politically effective if the focus were on the unfinished agenda of the African-American movement, that is, the issues of economic and social development, the protection of social and economic rights of all, and democratic and cooperative relations with other nations.  Such a progressive national agenda could attain political efficacy only through a popular coalition of blacks, Latinos, and whites.  Such a coalition of folks from different communities with different cultures and histories is not going to be attained by each focusing on the perceived defects of the other, but by focusing on common interests and finding common ground.  Jesse Jackson understood this, and he developed the Rainbow Coalition in the 1980s.  However, the Rainbow Coalition did not have the resources and/or the commitment to develop itself into a nationwide mass organization, capable of offering a politically viable progressive alternative in the public debate. 
 
     Without the development of a progressive coalition that offers a politically viable alternative narrative on the nation to the people, we are left with confusion and polarization.  The images at the end of the film, focusing on recent conflicts in the streets, portray well this sad phenomenon.
 
    In her comments to introduce the film, Ms. Rezik asked, what are the sources of white racism?  It is a good question.  A good answer would focus on the manipulation of whites by white elites.  The phenomenon began in slavery times and continued in the age of segregation in the South.  Southern elites were always afraid of a united action by blacks and working-class whites in the creation of a different kind of social order.  So they disseminated unscientific claims about difference in skin color, confusing and dividing our people, doing so in defense of their particular interests, without concern for the consequences for the development of the society in the long term.  In the 1960s, when the age of segregation came to an end and racism became discredited, and with white society having limited understanding of the racial dynamics of the nation, politicians like Wallace, Nixon, and Reagan exploited white anxieties and confusions by turning to a subtle form of racism, talking about welfare and crime as an indirect and more socially acceptable way of talking about race.  The film alludes to this phenomenon, and correctly portrays that it culminates in Trump.  The film, however, implies that it was David Duke and Trump.  But in fact, the leadership of the Republican Party in general has moved in the direction of exploiting white anxieties since the 1960s.
 
     But Mr. Lee, what is the solution?  Can persons of your influence in U.S. society find the road toward the forging of that popular coalition that we failed to develop in the 1970s and 1980s?  A politically effective popular coalition is the remedy to white racism, even though it attains its political goals by de-emphasizing racism per se.

     Revolutionary consciousness is rooted in faith in the future of humanity, in the belief that the long-term historic tendencies will establish the foundation for a just, democratic, and sustainable world-system.  It is not a religious faith that sees intervention by a deity in order to guarantee human wellbeing.  Nor is it an idealist faith, disconnected from actual emerging economic, scientific, technological, social, and ideological conditions.  Rather, it is a question of discerning the tendencies within the existing world-system that point to a positive outcome for humanity, tendencies that are hidden behind the ideological façade that is an integral component of world-system structures of domination.  Consciousness of existing world-systemic tendencies enables us to project future possibilities, and to act with political and scientific intelligence in support of those tendencies that defend humanity.
 
      What are important tendencies in the world-system today?  What dangers and possibilities do they project for humanity?  How are the tendencies illustrated by the attempted U.S.-directed coup d’état in Venezuela, and by Venezuela’s successful defense of itself?  (See “Venezuela blocks coup attempt” 3/3/2019; “What enabled Venezuela to block the US coup?” 3/6/2019).
 
     An important tendency is that the representative democracies of the global North are experiencing political fragmentation and division as well as ideological confusion, as central dynamics to the political structures of representative democracies.  As a dimension of this phenomenon, the major representative democracies are demonstrating that they have no reasonable response to the sustained structural crisis of the world-system (see the category World-System Crisis).  We therefore can project that the crisis of the world-system crisis will deepen, with its symptoms of the increasing predominance of financial speculation over investment in production, insufficient international response to threats to ecological balance, deepening underdevelopment in peripheral and semiperipheral regions, increasing levels of crime and violence, uncontrollable international migration, the delegitimation of political structures, and global political instability.  In the case of the United States, the relative fall in its productive and commercial capacities and its significant decline in prestige make likely that it will increasingly use military intervention in order to defend its economic interests, thereby reinforcing the global tendency toward the deepening crisis of the world-system.
 
     A second important tendency is the continuous development of the colonized and semi-colonized peoples of the world as revolutionary subjects in opposition to the basic structures of the world-system, a phenomenon that has been expressing itself for the last two centuries and that reached an advanced stage in the period 1946 to 1979 and again from 1994 to the present (see various posts in the category Third World).  The deepening crisis of the world-system will feed the tendency of the neocolonized peoples to grow in consciousness, such that they will increasingly become revolutionary subjects acting politically in their particular nations.  Observing this phenomenon to date, we can project that such growth in consciousness will be uneven, with some regions and nations being more advanced than others; and it will not be straight line of advance, for it will be characterized by reversals and setbacks.  However, it is likely that popular consciousness will continue to grow, as the system increasingly demonstrates its incapacity to resolve the problems that humanity confronts.
 
    The recent history of Venezuela illustrates the raising consciousness of the people as well as its uneven character.  During the period 1994 to 2014, there were important advances in popular consciousness, tied to concrete political gains, as a result of the emergence of Hugo Chávez as an important charismatic leader in the region (see the category Charismatic Leaders).  The economic and psychological war launched by the U.S. power elite and the reactionary sector of the Venezuelan national bourgeoisie in 2014, following the death of Chávez, had its effect on national popular consciousness, confusing some of the people, and resulting in the parliamentary victory of the opposition in 2016.  However, the opposition parliamentary majority had no unified program and national project that it could offer to the people.  Many of its members favored a return to neoliberalism, which had been rejected by the great majority in the 1990s.  As a result, the opposition was unable to use its parliamentary majority to propose to the people a post-Chavist program that would enable it to expand and deepen its popular support.  Its basic unifying concept was opposition to Chávez’s handpicked successor, Nicolás Maduro.  Therefore, its focus was on removing Maduro from office before the completion of his term, and it adopted tactics of political destabilization toward this end, with many in the opposition hoping to establish conditions for the justification of a U.S. military intervention.  This orientation of the parliamentary majority toward political destabilization was observed by the people, resulting in reduced popular support. 
 
     In these political developments, we see the fall and rise of popular consciousness.  The opposition, having attained popular support through unpatriotic and manipulative means, subsequently made clear its political and moral incapacity to govern.  It could not avoid squandering the popular support that it had attained through devious means, for it sought restoration of the power of particular national and international interests.  Accordingly, it had not prepared itself to lead the people toward a more dignified road for the nation.  The result was a growth in popular consciousness concerning the incapacity of the opposition to govern.
 
     The incapacity of the opposition to present itself as the future leadership of the nation continued to be demonstrated.  In internationally mediated negotiations between the Maduro government and the opposition in the Dominican Republic, it was decided to advance the presidential elections scheduled for the end of 2018 to May of that year.  The opposition decided to not sign the agreement, apparently under orders from Washington to not arrive to a reconciliation, or perhaps having second thoughts concerning the results.  However, the government decided to proceed with presidential elections on May 20.  Some opposition parties participated; others called for a boycott.  Maduro won the elections with 67% of the votes, with the same absolute number of votes as in the past, but with a higher percentage, due to a higher non-participation rate.  In spite of the relatively low turnout (by recent Venezuelan standards), the number of votes for Maduro as a percentage of the registered voters was higher than those of recent victorious presidential candidates in Argentina, the United States, and Brazil.  However, continuing its destabilization tactics in alliance with imperialist objectives, the opposition refused to accept the electoral results, setting the stage for Guaidó’s self-declaration as president of Venezuela as an integral component of the U.S.-directed coup d’état.
 
        The comportment of those sectors of the opposition tied to the coup functioned to accelerate the popular rejection of the opposition.  In seeking to divide the armed forces and the people in a prelude to an imperialist military intervention by a foreign power, the opposition was making more evident to the people its true character: its alignment with international capital, its subservience to foreign interests, its lack of commitment to its own nation, and its inability to formulate a proposed national project.  In its amoral and politically unintelligent comportment, the opposition made clear that its interests and objectives have nothing in common with principles of national sovereignty or the wellbeing of the people, and that it is driven above all toward the attainment of its own particular economic interests.  Its comportment was enabling the people to attain greater awareness of the class interests at stake in the political posture of the opposition, and of the coincidence of the class interests of the Venezuelan elite with those of U.S. imperialism.  
 
     These are important lessons for the people.  The opposition spoke of human rights and democracy, but its agenda was the defense of its own economic interests, in alliance with powerful economic actors who are opposed to the structural transformations of the Chavist project in defense of the sovereignty of the nation and the needs of the people.  The people were able to see learn that the United States continues with its imperialist objectives, as in the past; and that the Venezuelan elite sectors are aligned with it.  They learn that they should not be deceived by a cynical and hypocritical discourse of democracy and human rights invented by the Latin American Right.  Popular consciousness deepens and expands, making possible the unity of the people and the armed forces in defense of the constitution, the president, and the nation.
 
      The situation in Venezuela, therefore, enables us to see the uneven but sure growth of the popular consciousness of the neocolonized peoples, converting themselves more and more into revolutionary subjects and political actors, seeking to transform the world-system structures that promote their underdevelopment and poverty.  This tendency grows alongside the inexorable and ever increasing economic and military aggressiveness of the powerful states and international corporations, demonstrating that they are morally and politically unprepared to respond to the challenges that humanity confronts in a responsible manner.  In a word, the rising confusion and aggressiveness of the North feeds the revolutionary consciousness and political action of the South. 
 
     A third important world-systemic tendency can be identified.  China and Russia have been cooperating with the more just and sustainable world-system that is seeking to be born.  They have been supporting and trading with the nations that are seeking an alternative road, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Vietnam, and Korea.  We can expect this tendency to continue, because it is consistent with the long-term interests of China and Russia.  The Russian Empire was a minor competitor of the American, Japanese, British, French, and other European empires, and it never attained comparable power.  For its part, the ancient Chinese Empire had been eclipsed by the increasing penetration of the European powers.  In the present global scenario, with the possibilities for ascent constrained by the fact that the world-system has reached the geographical limits of the earth, China and Russia have an interest in an alternative world-system, governed by the proclaimed international values of the sovereign equality of nations and the right of all peoples to development and self-determination.  (These values, it should be noted, emerged in the context of the political dynamics of the existing world-system, showing that the new system is born from the old).  Inasmuch as China and Russia have an interest in an alternative more just and sustainable world-system, we can expect that their foreign policies will be increasing driven by consciousness of this interest, standing against Western imperialism. 
 
     Pragmatic considerations require a degree of cooperation by China and Russia with the Western powers, which obscures the fact that they are supporting the transition to a different kind of world-system, more just and sustainable.  This possible alternative world-system could be understood as a socialist world-system, that is, a world-system in which proclaimed socialist governments are among the key actors.  In which such socialist governments are seeking to develop political structures of popular assemblies; to act decisively in the economy in defense of the social and economic needs of the people and the sovereignty of the nation; and to develop mutually beneficial trade among nations, on a base of respect for the sovereignty of all nations. 
 
      We in the Left in the North should understand better these world-systemic tendencies and the possibilities that they suggest, in order that we can explain them to our peoples, and in order that we can develop a political platform that responds to these dynamics in a scientifically informed and politically intelligent manner.  We would understand them better if we took more seriously the Third World anti-neocolonial movements and revolutions, for such an understanding is implicit in their theory and practice.
 
      With greater understanding of world-systemic tendencies, we would be able to explain to our peoples of the North the necessary road of North-South cooperation, necessary for political stability and for economic and ecological sustainability.  In the case of the United States, a discourse of North-South cooperation could identify with the historic popular movements of our people, inasmuch as the concept of North-South cooperation was invoked in the discourses of Jesse Jackson in the 1980s; and of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the black power movement, and the anti-imperialist wing of the student anti-war movement in the 1960s.  These formulations were theoretical advances in the popular movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which sought to expand and deepen the meaning of democracy, proclaimed by the American Revolution of 1776.  Through such a national narrative that embraces the historic movements of the people, we would be constructing a nationalist and patriotic discourse that would be an alternative to the narrow nationalism and false patriotism that has been evolving in US public discourse from the beginning, and that has attained its most pernicious manifestations in the period from Reagan to Trump.  It is a question, as Dr. King understood, of a struggle “to redeem the soul of America.”

    U.S. supported coups d’état and U.S. military interventions are not new in Latin America.  They occurred during the course of the twentieth century, an integral dimension of an imperialist foreign policy that sought access to the natural resources, cheap labor, and markets of Latin America and the Caribbean.  Imperialist policy mandates interfering in the affairs of nations, backing politicians and governments supportive of U.S. economic interests and political objectives, and undermining governments that seek a sovereign and independent road.  Imperialism has been a consistent component of U.S. foreign policy, regardless of which of the two parties is in power (see various posts in the category US imperialism).  The twentieth century emergence of U.S. imperialism with respect to Latin America and the Caribbean was itself a new stage in the conquest and domination of the region by the European colonial powers, beginning in the sixteenth century, enabling them to appropriate its natural resources (see various posts in the category Latin American History).  In effect, U.S. imperialist policies enabled the nation to successfully insert itself into global structures established by European colonialism.
 
     However, U.S. imperialist interference today expresses itself in a historic moment different from that of U.S. hegemonic maturity in a stable neocolonial world-system.  Several factors have created a different historic moment.  (1) The formerly colonized peoples of the world never fully accepted the rules of the neocolonial world order, giving rise to a persistent tendency for the emergence of revolutionary subjects among the colonized peoples, challenging and sometimes taking power from national elites that accommodate colonial interests.  The phenomenon reached its most advanced expression in the period 1948 to 1979, represented by the emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement and the proclamation of a New International Economic Order by the UN General Assembly in 1974.  Although eclipsed by the imposition by the global powers of neoliberalism, the Third World project of 1948 to 1979 established the theoretical and practical foundation for Third World resistance today.  (2) The world-system has been in a sustained multi-dimensional structural crisis since the 1970s, as a result of the fact that it has reached and overextended the geographical limits of the earth.  (3) The United States has suffered an economic decline relative to other core nations since the 1950s, as a result of its overconsumption in relation to its productive capacities and its dependency on an expanding military-industrial complex, a decline that was evident in the elimination of the gold standard for the dollar in the 1970s.  (4)  U.S. and European elites responded to the above dynamics with a neoliberal economic war, launched in the 1980s and spearheaded by the IMF and the World Bank; and with aggressive military actions in the Middle East, especially since 1990.  Such economic and military aggression, in violation of laws, norms, and values that the world-system itself had developed, was and is intended to reassert political, economic, financial, and ideological control of an increasingly unstable world-system.  (5) The global economic war and the wars of aggression gave rise to a revitalization of Third World resistance to the neocolonial world-system, as is evident in the emergence of progressive and Leftist governments in Latin America, and the retaking of the Third World project of the 1960s and 1970s by the Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77, with the support and cooperation of a rapidly expanding China and a revitalized Russia (see posts in the categories Third World, Latin American Unity, South-South Cooperation, and World-System Crisis). 
 
      Therefore, in the current historic moment, the USA does not have the economic and financial capacity and the prestige that it had in its hegemonic maturity, and it must increasingly rely on the use of military force, a sector in which remains hegemonic, in the pursuit of its political and economic objectives.  At the same time, the consciousness of the peoples of the Third World for the necessity of an alternative, more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system has never been greater, and the interest of powers like China and Russia in an alternative world-system has never been clearer. 
 
     Venezuela is of central importance in this clash of civilizations, between, on the one hand, an unsustainable neocolonial world-system and a militaristic declining hegemonic power, and on the other hand, a more just and sustainable world-system seeking to be born.  Since 1999, Venezuela has played a leading role in the forging of a progressive political reality in Latin America, and it has significant oil reserves.  Accordingly, it has become a symbol of Third World efforts to construct a more just and sustainable world-system.
 
      The capacity of the Chavist revolutionary government in Venezuela to turn back the recent U.S. directed coup d’état (see “Venezuela blocks coup attempt” 3/3/2019) is of pivotal importance, and it could be a turning point that reveals the inherent limitations of the militarist foreign policy of a declining power; and that reveals the strengths of the global popular revolution in the current historic epoch, in spite of the continuing challenges that it confronts.  The turning back of the coup could be interpreted as an indication that the revitalized Latin American popular revolution has sustainability, because it is firmly rooted in popular consciousness of imperialist and neocolonial domination and of the principle of the right of nations to sovereignty.  And the turning back of the coup could be interpreted as an indication that the world-system, as it is presently organized, cannot be sustained, because it is based on the morally and politically unacceptable premise that a minority of the world’s population are the rightful owners of the natural and human resources of the planet.
 
      What made the successful resistance to the U.S. directed coup possible?  As I observed events through the lens of Cuban journalists, among whom successful Venezuelan resistance to the coup was never assumed, it became clear that the people were unifying in support of the government.  The armed forces remained united behind the constitutional president, and the people took to the streets in his support.  At the same time, it became clear that the calls of the opposition gained a weak following.  At the critical moment, polls found that some 92% of the people were against foreign intervention, and 86% believed that Venezuelans should resolve their own problems.  When confronted with what they increasingly understood as the imperialist designs of a neocolonial power, the Venezuelan people came to the support of their nation; and of universal human values that are central to a just and sustainable world-system, such as the non-interference in the affairs of nations and the sovereign right of nations.
 
      The increasing support for the government at critical moments is not surprising, because the opposition plays political games, as it must.  It attained a certain level of support among the people through political maneuvers and deception.  To wit, it preys on the human tendency to expect too much of governments, blaming the government for all inadequacies, real and invented, in order to attain a degree of electoral support.  But in these political maneuvers, it does not announce a return to neoliberal policies or a subordination to foreign interests.  When its actions reveal that these are precisely its intentions, it loses popular support.  The growing popular rejection of the opposition, for its inability to present a viable political program to the people, was evident in the May 20, 2018 presidential elections, in which Maduro attained a solid majority for a second presidential term.
 
     By the time Guaidó emerged on the scene, the opposition had less support, and his blatant ties to imperialist interests and his calls for military intervention reinforced the decline of the opposition.  His call to the masses went unheard; and his “orders” to the military were ignored.  Seeing this, the world backed off its previous implicit support for US military intervention.  Even the U.S.-created Group of Lima in the end did not support military action.  Apparently, the Trump administration did not want to act unilaterally, without the support of the Latin American Right. 
 
      The key, then, to the successful resistance to the coup was the unity of the people, made possible by popular commitment to the principle of the right of the nation to be sovereign, to determine its own road, without interference by a foreign power; and by popular awareness that U.S. imperialist polices, historically and at present, ignore this right.  The unification was aided by the fact that the United States is itself a declining hegemonic power, without the prestige and the economic clout that it once had, so that it is less able to influence popular consciousness in Latin America and other formerly colonized regions.
 
     But it is only one battle.  The USA intends to continue with economic pressure on Venezuela and to build an anti-Venezuela coalition of nations, looking for a more opportune moment to intervene.  Venezuela, meanwhile, will be seeking to develop new trading partners, to diversify and strengthen its economy, and to strengthen its international support, with the conviction that success in these endeavors will enable it to maintain the unity of the people.
 
      Who is likely to win this battle between, on the one hand, a declining neocolonial hegemonic power seeking to restore its domination of Latin America; and on the other hand,
Latin American nations seeking a sovereign and dignified road?  We will address this question in our next post, taking into account world-systemic tendencies.

     The U.S.-directed coup d’état in Venezuela, unfolding from January 23 to February 23, has been foiled by the loyalty of the armed forces and the unity of the people behind the constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro. 
 
      The attempted coup occurs in the context of an economic and psychological war conducted by the Trump administration against Venezuela, with the strategic support of the Southern Command of the U.S. military and the major media of communication.  The strategy has been the provoking a shortage of food and medicine through an economic war and the freezing of assets, blaming the Venezuelan government for the subsequent shortages, inflation, and economic stagnation.  The mass media campaign within Venezuela is directed toward the middle class, seeking to stimulate irrational behavior as a result of the disruption of established patterns of consumption, provoked by the economic war.  Internationally, the media campaign portrays the Chavist government as an authoritarian violator of human rights, whose economic policy of interference in “free trade” and rampant corruption have created a humanitarian crisis.  The campaign against Venezuela is part of a larger objective of restoring U.S. dominance of Latin America and the Caribbean, recovering the terrain that had been lost as a result of the rise of governments of the Left.  Leftist and self-proclaimed socialist governments of the region have sought to defend the sovereignty of their nations and the social and economic rights of their peoples through decisive state action in the economy as well as through regional cooperation and alliances with China and Russia (see “The legitimacy of Maduro and Venezuela” 1/15/2019 in the category Venezuela).   
 
      The coup began on January 23, when Juan Guaidó, a figure not well known in Venezuela but with a history of ties to the extreme Right in the United States, declared himself President of Venezuela (see “Juan Guaidó: The savior of Venezuela” 2/4/2019 in the category Venezuela).  This declaration, as has been widely noted, was made the day after a telephone conversation with U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence.  Guaidó recently had been elected President of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, which had been suspended by the Supreme Court for being in contempt of court.  Guaidó invoked weak and highly questionable constitutional arguments in support of his self-declaration as president.  His “government” was immediately recognized by the Trump administration, which persuaded some governments (mostly European governments or weak states lacking the conditions for an independent foreign policy) also to recognize Guaidó.  The hope of U.S. planners was that key sectors of the Venezuelan armed forces as well as the people would back Guaidó, thus giving credibility to U.S. economic and military aid to the newly declared “government.” 
 
      However, things did not develop as the planners had hoped.  Popular support was thin, inasmuch as the “government” had a “made in the USA” image; and in addition, some of the opposition parties were not in support of the strategy.  At the same time, the military showed little sign of fracture.
 
      Thus, the coup attempt entered a second stage.  February 23 was named “D-Day,” when “humanitarian aid” would be accompanied by masses of people from Columbia to Venezuela.  It was anticipated that either (1) the Venezuelan police and military would have to permit the great mass of people to enter the country, thus establishing a “humanitarian corridor” that would function as a foothold for U.S. military presence in Venezuelan territory; or (2) the Venezuelan forces would overreact with violence, thus providing a pretext for a direct U.S. military intervention. 
 
      Internationally, the “humanitarian aid” plan lacked credibility.  The value of food goods was a tiny fraction of what sanctions against the country were costing the Venezuelan economy, so that pretensions of concern for the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people could not be seen as genuine.  The “humanitarian aid” was widely seen as politically motivated and as a prelude to U.S. military presence.  The International Red Cross denounced the U.S. scheme and refused to participate.
 
       Within Venezuela, this second stage of the coup had even less credibility than the first.  It was increasingly recognized that the Guaidó government was a U.S. creation.  There was a growing sentiment among the people that, whatever disagreements and conflicts existed among Venezuelans, the president of their country should not be named by a foreign power.  Moreover, the people overwhelmingly were opposed to a U.S. military intervention, because of the ill fame of U.S. military interventions in Latin America, and because of awareness of the death and destruction that would be among the consequences.  As the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Relations stated, it is really said that someone who claims to be president, in one of his first acts, would call upon a foreign power to invade the country.  Fueled by sentiments of patriotism, above and beyond commitment to its Bolivarian Revolution, the people of Venezuela took to the streets in support of their constitutional president Nicolás Maduro.  Supporters of the opposition and of Guaidó did not take to the streets in the numbers that the coup planners had hoped, in Venezuela or on the Colombian side of the Venezuelan border.  Guaidó had ordered the Venezuelan armed forces to ensure the transport of the humanitarian aid into Venezuela, but this “presidential” executive order had zero effect.
 
     Inasmuch as the convoked popular army that was to carry the humanitarian aid into Venezuela did not materialize, the Venezuelan security forces were able to block the advance of the limited number of protestors with a minimal amount of non-lethal force.  Opposition demonstrators burned two trucks with humanitarian aid, but Venezuelan authorities were able to disseminate photos and videos, showing that the trucks were burned on the Colombian side by the opposition.  Some opposition protestors attacked a police station near the border, but the police were able defend it.  Neither the mass popular advance with the humanitarian aid into Venezuela nor the violent overreaction by Venezuelan security forces occurred.  D-Day was a failure for the opposition.
 
     Seeing the loyalty of the military forces to the government of Maduro and the limited popular response to the exhortations of Guaidó, a rupture occurred in the “Group of Lima,” the Latin American nations led by the USA that were supporting the coup d’état.  The Latin American members of the group backed off a U.S. military intervention.  The Vice-Chancellor of Peru, for example, observed that the Group of Lima seeks a peaceful solution.  The Chancellor of Colombia observed that the goal of the Group of Lima is to reestablish the constitutional order, apparently recognizing the failure to impose Guaidó on the people.  Similarly, the Vice-Chancellor of Brazil stated that Brazil does not support a military intervention. 
 
      At the same time, the international community was increasingly against U.S. military intervention.  The European Union, initially supporting “humanitarian aid,” pronounced against the use of force.  Russia, Cuba, China, the Community of Caribbean States, and ALBA denounced the U.S. plans for intervention.  The Security Council of the United Nations denied to support a U.S. declaration on Venezuela, as U.S. policy was condemned by Russia, China, South Africa, and Bolivia in the Security Council debate.
 
      Following the failure of D-Day, Pence observed that all options remain on the table.  It seems likely that the USA will continue to apply sanctions against Venezuela and will call upon more nations to join in the financial blockade against Venezuela, hoping to promote destabilization and an incident that would provide a pretext for military intervention.  As Marina Menéndez writes, “the main direction of the aggressive tactic appears to be, for now, to continue to seek a social implosion by means of the financial drowning of the State,” in order to resolve the affair through military means (Menéndez 2019).  As José Bell Lara, a researcher at the Latin American Faculty of the Social Sciences (FLACSO) of the University of Havana, said to me, “Trump needs a war to rescue himself from a problematic domestic situation.” 
 
       Venezuela prefers a peaceful resolution, but it is prepared to defend itself.  Its armed forces are loyal to the government, and it is relatively well-equipped.  Venezuela has organized a popular militia of 2 million persons in 335 municipalities, which form the rear guard in a “civic-military union.”  The atmosphere, nevertheless, is calm.  At the same time, responding to the economic and financial sanctions of the Trump administration, Venezuela has signed contracts with various nations for the sale of petroleum, replacing sales to the USA; and it is progressively increasing production in order to generate more petroleum income.  
 
      Seeking to protect its sovereignty and independence in the long term, Venezuela seeks to develop science and technology in order to diversify its production, and it especially is oriented to sovereignty with respect to food and medicine.  In its foreign policy, it is committed to the principals of the self-determination of nations, the non-interference in the internal affairs of nations, and the peaceful resolution of differences, expecting that these internationally proclaimed norms will function as constraints on the aggressiveness of the USA.  It seeks to strengthen its solidarity with the peoples, governments, and organisms of the world that seek an alternative road different from that designed by neocolonial global structures; governments such as China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, India, Vietnam, Cuba, and Bolivia, and organizations such as ALBA, PETROCARIBE, the Community of Latin and Caribbean States, OPEC, and the Non-Aligned Movement.  It sees itself as cooperating with the governments and peoples of the world in the development of a world-system that is more just and sustainable, in which the true sovereignty of all nations is respected. 
 
     As we will discuss in the next post, Venezuela is in accord with, and indeed is a symbol of, important world-system tendencies.

​Sources
 
Callone, Stella. 2019.  “La guerra de Estados Unidos: Venezuela, Nicaragua, y Cuba ¿y después?” Granma (February 27).
 
Capote, Raúl Antonio.  2019.  “Colgados y quemado: el lenguaje de la derecha,” Granma: Suplemento Especial (February 23).
 
Goodman, Amy & Juan González.  2019.  “The Coup Has Failed and Now the US Is Looking to Wage War in Venezuela,” (an interview with Jorge Arreaza, Foreign Minister of Venezuela), Democracy Now! (February 25).
 
Menéndez Quintero, Marina.  2019.  “Esta pulseado la ganó Venezuela,” Juventud Rebelde (February 26).
 
Pérez, Elson Concepción.  2019.  “‘Agentes’ para acá y para allá,” Granma: Suplemento Especial (February 23).
 
Ramírez, Edgardo Antonio.  2019.  “La razia imperialista contra Venezuela,” Granma (February 27).
 
Sánchez Serra, Oscar.  2019.  “Las guerras mienten, pero la verdad nunca muere,” Granma: Suplemento Especial (February 23).
 
Sheehan, Cindy.  2019.  “There is no Humanitarian Crisis in Venezuela,” Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox (February 14).​

​     We have seen in recent posts that Cuba has been developing a new Constitution, with the active participation of the people, the National Assembly, and the Party.  See “Constitutional Democracy in Cuba” 1/9/2019; “People’s Constitutional Assembly in Cuba” 1/11/2019; “The Cuban people speak” 1/18/2019; “Cuban Constitutional Commission Reports” 1/21/2019; “The Cuban National Assembly debates” 1/24/2018; “The new Cuban Constitution: Continuity” 1/28/2019; “A more inclusive Cuban Revolution” 2/1/2019; “A more pragmatic Cuban Revolution” 2/7/2019; and “Cuba seeks greater state efficiency” 2/11/2019.
 
      On February 24, 2019, the Cuban people, in a direct and secret vote by each citizen, approved the new Constitution that they have been constructing.  Some 84.4% of resident citizens voted, with 86.8% voting “Yes,” 9% voting “No,” 2.5% blank ballots, and 1.6% annulled. 
 
     The Preamble to the Cuban Constitution of 2019 states:

The Constitution proceeds to affirm the civil, political, social, and economic rights of all, regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious belief, or disability.  It reconfirms that structures of popular democracy that have been evolving since the early 1960s, including the role of the Communist Party as the vanguard party that guides and educates the people.  It affirms the right of all nations to sovereignty and self-determination, in resistance to the imperialist policies of the global powers.  It defines the role of the state as the author of a development plan and as director and regulator in the economy, necessary for the protection of the rights of the citizens and the nation.  It confirms the duty of the nation to protect the natural environment.  It maintains that Cuba is and will be socialist.
 
      As we observe the fragmentation, division, and confusion that reigns in many representative democracies of the world, it is difficult to imagine that many of them would be capable of coming close to Cuba in forging a popular consensus with respect to the history of the nation, the concepts and values that ought to guide its development, and its political-economic structures.  The problem with the representative democracies, born from the bourgeois revolutions of the last decades of the eighteenth century, is that they pretend to give power to the people, but in reality, power is in the hands of the elite and its representatives; they have the appearance of democracy, but not the substance.  As a result, the popular revolutions of the twentieth century have assumed the duty of forging the political and economic processes that would give power to the people and establish their social emancipation.  The fruits of that labor are beginning to appear, such that, in the first decades of the twenty-first century, the advantages of popular democracy, with its structures of popular power, its mass organizations, and its vanguard party that is of the people and that educates the people, has become a self-evident truth.

  December 18, 2015 (Revised February 25, 2019)
 
      During the 1990s, I began a process of encounter with the Cuban revolutionary project, living among the people, listening to the commentaries of Cuban journalists on television, reading the works of Cuban academics and intellectuals, and reading the speeches and writings of Fidel Castro.  I soon came to learn that Fidel is a man of exceptional qualities, possessing a high level of understanding of the structures of colonial and neocolonial domination and of the strategies that are necessary for national liberation.  And I came to appreciate that he has a high level of commitment to the Cuban nation and people.  Fidel is loved by the Cuban people, who appreciate his exceptional qualities.
 
      As a pre-university student, Fidel was formed in the tradition of the Cuban struggle for national liberation.  He was a great admirer of the Cuban nineteenth century nationalist José Martí, as were many Cuban youth, and he read all of the books that had been written on the two Cuban wars of independence.  During his third year at the University of Havana, he began to read the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, using the library of the communist party.  He appropriated their concepts from the vantage point of the Cuban situation, thus forging a creative synthesis of the Cuban struggle for national liberation with Marxism-Leninism.  In accordance with this creative adaptation, he conceived a revolution of the people rather than a proletarian revolution. 
 
      Fidel possessed an instinctive exceptional capacity for the art of politics.  He grasped that the bold attack on the Moncada Barracks of July 26, 1956 was the kind of action that was needed to galvanize the people.  In calling the people to revolution, he understood the necessity of making declarations that take into account the perceptions and values of the people.  He realized that the Cuban people of the 1950s were rebellious, but they had not yet developed revolutionary consciousness; so it was necessary to focus on concrete problems.  In addition, during the revolutionary war and after its triumph, he discerned the need for the unity of the diverse revolutionary forces, and he possessed the capacity to forge it.  During his many years as the Cuban chief of state, he also demonstrated an exceptional understanding of global dynamics, and he became an important voice defending a radical Third World agenda in the international arena.  In the 1980s, in a series of speeches on the causes and the consequences of the Third World debt, he showed a greater understanding of the world-economy than the great majority of economists.
 
      Fidel also has possessed a remarkable faith in the ultimate triumph of the socialist revolution.  It is a faith that is rooted in the conviction of the justice of the socialist cause, and it is inspired by the examples of the great revolutionaries in human history.  In contrast to the skepticism of the intellectual who can see only the objective conditions and the subjective correlation of forces, Fidel’s revolutionary faith sees the possibility of changing these conditions and forces, through analysis that discerns hidden possibilities within the existing conditions and forces.
 
       The phenomenon of the charismatic gifts of Fidel brings to mind the concept of charismatic authority, formulated in the early twentieth century by the German sociologist Max Weber.  For Weber, persons can possess authority, defined as the capacity to influence others, because of an office that they hold in a bureaucratic structure, such as the president of a country; or a position that they hold in a traditional system, such as a king.  But there are others who hold no office, yet they possess authority because of their exceptional gifts.  Often they are innovators who reform tradition.
 
     In addition to encountering the Cuban revolutionary project, I also have been reading of revolutions in other lands.  I found that other revolutions possessed charismatic leaders, not merely persons who led the revolutions, but persons with exceptional gifts, whose leadership was a necessary and decisive factor in the gains of the revolution.  As a result of this study of various revolutions, I have come to the conclusion that the emergence of charismatic leaders is a general characteristic of revolutionary processes.
 
     In Haiti, Toussaint L’Ouverture was a military genius who also mastered the art of politics, gifts that enabled him to command a black army and control nearly all of the territory.  As a result, he was recognized as Governor of the French colony of San Domingo, as it was then known.  As Governor, he maintained the sugar plantations, converting the slaves into free wage workers.  He stabilized the economy and enjoyed support among blacks, whites and mulattos.  He correctly understood that, as a result of the legacy of slavery, the development of the nation needed French support and cooperation, on the basis of Jacobin principles.  But this vision was not realized.  The Jacobins lost power in France, and the revolution in San Domingo that had been led by Toussaint was brought to an end by the invasion of Napoleon.  Toussaint was arrested, and he died in prison shortly afterward.  Napoleon tried to restore slavery in San Domingo, without success, due to the revolutionary resistance of the people.  An independent nation of Haiti, without slavery, was declared.  But independent Haiti was not the Haiti that Toussaint envisioned.  It went in a different direction: ties with France were severed, whites were massacred, and the plantations were divided into subsistence plots.  It endured isolation and poverty for decades, a legacy from which it still suffers.
 
      In the Mexican Revolution, a charismatic leader capable of unifying the revolution on the basis of a national plan that united the forces of peasants, workers, and the petit bourgeoisie did not emerge.  Zapata and Villa possessed charismatic gifts, but their vision was limited to the perspective of the peasant and the countryside, and not the nation as a whole.  Ricardo Flores Magón was able to envision the necessary national plan, but he did not master the art of politics.  The Mexican Revolution triumphed not as a popular revolution but as a revolution by a rising petit bourgeoisie, based in the military.
 
      In the case of the Russian Revolution of 1917, Lenin adapted Marxism to the conditions of Russia, discerning that the unfolding revolution was not precisely a proletarian revolution, but a peasant and proletarian revolution, led by a proletarian vanguard.  Appreciating the need for the support of the peasantry, Lenin put forth a slogan for the distribution of land to peasants.  In addition, Lenin discerned the importance of the soviets (workers,’ peasants’ and soldiers’ councils), as the expression of an advanced form of democracy and as an indication that the Russian Revolution represented a transition to socialism.
 
     Lenin understood that the consolidation and development of the Russian Revolution would require the triumph of the proletarian revolution in Western Europe, in order that Western European governments would provide necessary technical support, inasmuch as Russia was relatively underdeveloped.  The failure of the proletarian revolution in Western Europe doomed the Russian Revolution.  Instead of support from the West, it was victimized by Western military invasion and support for counterrevolutionary opposition sectors.  With the death of Lenin, the Russian Revolution fell to a petit bourgeois bureaucratic class, so that it was no longer a peasant-worker revolution.  Subsequently, the bureaucratic class ruled with repression under Stalin.
 
     Lenin possessed an exceptional understanding of global dynamics.  He discerned that with the failure of the proletariat revolution in the Western Europe, the vanguard of the revolution would move to the East, that is, to the colonized and oppressed peoples of the world. 
 
     The Haitian, Mexican and Russian revolutions inspired the world.  But none of them ultimately triumphed as revolutions of the people guided by charismatic leadership.  In contrast, popular revolutions in the colonized and peripheralized regions of the Third World would triumph and would sustain themselves, thus placing themselves in the vanguard of the global socialist revolution, as Lenin had anticipated.  During the twentieth century, the two most important expressions of this were the revolutions led by Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh.
 
     Ho Chi Minh adapted Marxism-Leninism to the conditions of Vietnam.  He forged in practice a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and the political-intellectual tradition of Vietnamese nationalism, which had been developed by Confucian scholars, and in which he had been formed as a young man.  He understood that national liberation of the colonized peoples could not be attained without socialism, and that socialism in the West could not be attained without the liberation of the colonized peoples.  He thus saw the dual character of the revolution as both a social and class revolution and an anti-colonial revolution of national liberation.  He discerned the revolutionary spontaneity of the peasant, setting aside the distrust of the peasantry that had been a strong component of the tradition of Marxism-Leninism.  Moreover, he mastered the art of politics, knowing when to implement revolutionary measures.  These exceptional qualities enabled him to lead the Vietnamese people through two long wars against French colonialism and US imperialism, ultimately leading to the establishment of an independent nation that to this day follows an autonomous socialist path to economic, political and cultural development.
 
      During the first decade and a half of the twenty-first century, in reaction to the imposition of the neoliberal project by the global powers, popular movements in Latin America assumed the vanguard in the global socialist movement.  Charismatic leaders emerged, calling the people in various nations to autonomous national projects that sought definitive independence from the neocolonial powers, and discerning the objective possibilities for Latin American and Caribbean unity and integration.  Especially important in the new Latin America have been Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador.
 
      There are charismatic leaders who directed movements that could not take and consolidate power, such as Simon Bolívar and José Martí, the two giants of the nineteenth century Latin American struggles for independence; and Julio Antonio Mella and Antonio Guiteras, leaders of the Cuban popular movement in the 1920s and early 1930s.  There are, in addition, charismatic leaders who led movements that took power for a relatively short period of time, such as Salvador Allende in Chile.  And there are charismatic leaders whose charisma is a consequence of a connection with a charismatic leader, as is the case with Raúl Castro in Cuba and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.  All of these leaders have had exceptional capacities to understand and to formulate courses of action, qualities that have been discerned by the people, who have lifted them up, thus providing them with political and teaching authority.
 
      The lack of understanding in the North of the necessary role of charismatic leaders in revolutionary processes leads us to misinterpretations.  We tend to think that the long-term presence of a single leader is a result of a move of the leader toward authoritarian control, thus confirming that “power corrupts.”  And we tend to think that the people support the authoritarian leader, because they have limited education, and because they are manipulated and/or fearful.  With this false assumption, we cannot see that the charismatic leader is an indispensable resource in the ongoing struggle against the global powers.  And we are not aware that the most educated and informed of the people are among the most fervent supporters of the charismatic leader, on the basis of their understanding of the essential role of the charismatic leader in sustaining a revolutionary process under continuous attack by powerful enemies.  When people in the North, in the name of democracy, call upon Third World governments to establish “term limits,” they are proposing a structure that is alien to revolutionary processes.  In order for revolutionary processes to sustain themselves, the continuing wisdom and unifying presence of the charismatic leader is indispensable.  When we propose “term limits,” we are suggesting to the poor and the colonized that they not use their most powerful weapon, as they struggle to survive the onslaught of hostile actions by the global powers.
 
      In the case of Cuba and Fidel, the charismatic authority of Fidel has been institutionalized in two ways.  First, when Fidel was named Prime Minister in the Revolutionary Government on February 13, 1959, his political authority was converted from charismatic to legal authority.  Subsequently, the Cuban Constitution of 1976 established structures of Popular Power, which include popular election of the National Assembly to five-year terms, which elects the Council of State and Ministers, including the President of the Council of State.  This represented a reorganization of the structures of legal authority.  Fidel was President of the Council of State through 2008, when he stepped down for reasons of health.  This office is currently held by Raúl Castro, who also possesses charismatic authority.  When Raúl no longer holds the office, others will be elected to five-year terms.  The long-term institutionalization of charismatic authority could involve the election of persons to the office of President of the Council of State who possess charismatic authority, exceptional gifts to analyze and explain, discerned by the people.  Such charismatic leaders would be among the people, because they are called forth by revolutionary process.  Our charismatic leaders are gifts from God, in that they are born with exceptional qualities.  But the revolutionary process nourishes them, and calls them to fulfillment of their potential and their duty.
 
     Secondly, the teaching authority of Fidel has been institutionalized through the creation of the Cuban Communist Party.  The charismatic authority of Fidel, in addition to political authority, included teaching authority, and in fulfillment of this function, Fidel in his speeches was constantly educating the people.  The Party, which consists of approximately 15% of the people, plays the role of forming the consciousness of the people and developing the political culture of the nation, rooted in the teachings of Fidel.  The transferring of Fidel’s teaching authority to the Party has been a slow process, because every time that Fidel spoke with insight, the authority to teach stayed with him, rather than being transferred to the Party.  But since his retirement in 2008, the process of institutionalization has accelerated.  The new social and economic model submitted to the National Assembly in 2012 was initiated by the Party, which led a mass popular consultation; Fidel played a minor, although supportive, role.
 
       A number of the blog posts that I have written on revolutionary processes in various nations have discussed the phenomenon of charismatic leaders.  These posts, in addition to being categorized in particular revolutions, also have been placed in the separate category of Charismatic Leaders.
 
      The posts in the category of Charismatic Leaders are as follows:
 
“A tribute to Fidel” 08/13/2017;
           
“Nicolás Maduro” 06/07/2017;
           
“Fidel speaks on the global crisis, 1983” 07/25/2016;
“Fidel proposes new global structures, 1983” 07/27/2016;
           
“Thank you, Fidel” 08/13/2016;
           
“Hugo Chávez Frías” 08/04/2016;
“The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” 08/05/2016;
“The Movement toward Socialism in Bolivia” 08/11/2016;
“The citizen revolution in Ecuador” 09/19/2016;
“The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua” 09/20/2016;
“Latin American and Caribbean unity” 09/21/2016;
           
“The Cuban tradition of heroism” 09/01/2014;
“Moncada: a great and heroic act” 09/02/2014;
“Fidel: ‘History will absolve me’” 09/04/2014;
“The Moncada program for the people” 09/05/2014;
“Reflections on “History will absolve me” 09/08/2014;
“Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 09/09/2014;
“Fidel’s social roots” 09/10/2014;
“Fidel becomes revolutionary at the university” 09/11/2014;
“The revolutionary faith of Fidel” 09/15/2014;
“Unifying the Cuban revolutionary process”            09/17/2014;
“The pluralism of revolutionary unity” 09/18/2014;
“The defining moment of the Cuban Revolution” 09/24/2014;
“Radicalization of the revolutionary government” 09/25/2014;
           
“On the charismatic leader” 04/30/2014;
“Ho’s practical theoretical synthesis” 05/09/2014;
           
“The dream renewed” 03/06/2014;
“Is Marx today fulfilled?” 03/20/2014;
           
“Zapata” 02/06/2014;
“Lessons of the Mexican Revolution” 02/19/2014;
           
“Reflections on the Russian Revolution” 01/29/2014;
           
“Toussaint L’Ouverture” 12/10/2013;
“The problem of dependency” 12/11/2013;
“Toussaint seeks North-South cooperation” 12/12/2013;
“The isolation and poverty of Haiti” 12/17/2013.
 
To find the posts, scroll down.
​

​     Cuba calls upon the governments, organizations, and social movements of the world to mobilize for peace and against U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.  At a press conference on February 19, 2019, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Relations of Cuba, declared:

​     The press conference was a response to the February 18 speech of President Trump in Florida, and it reiterated the February 13 Declaration of the Cuban Revolutionary Government that the United States is preparing a military aggression against Venezuela under the pretext of humanitarian aid (see “Cuba declares on Venezuela” 2/18/2019).
 
      In the February 19 press conference, Rodríguez noted that the United States has set a deadline for penetrating Venezuelan territory with the “humanitarian aid” by means of force.  He declared this posture to be a contradiction in terms, because aid that is truly humanitarian cannot possibly rest on violence, on the force of arms, and on the violation of international law. 
 
     Rodríguez further observed that the government of the United States has been continually pressuring members of the Security Council of the United Nations in order to force the adoption of a resolution in support of a “humanitarian intervention.”  He noted that, in the past, resolutions of this kind are prelude to the establishment of “no-fly zones” and “humanitarian corridors” in order to justify the use of force, with the pretext of protecting civilians.  “We hope,” he declared, “that the Security Council of the United Nations will be true to its vocation and its responsibility as the principal guarantor of peace and international security and will not lend service to military ventures.  We call upon its members to act with fidelity to international law and to defend peace.”
 
     Rodríguez described Trump’s speech as characterized by “extraordinary cynicism, extraordinary hypocrisy.”  Trump speaks of democracy, Rodríguez observes, but ignores the injustice and the exploitation that are the legacy of U.S. imperialism in Latin America.  He overlooks that the U.S. political system is ruled by special interests and corporate contributions, with elections that are won through the manipulation of the people.  He does not mention the millions of poor persons in the United States, the five hundred thousand homeless persons, the racially differentiated system of criminal justice, and the low level of unionization among U.S. workers.
 
      Trump proclaims that the hemisphere will be free of socialism for the first time in history.  It is not the first time that the United States has decreed the “end of socialism,” Rodríguez maintains.  Trump said in Florida that “we have seen the future of Cuba here in Miami.”  But he is wrong, Rodríguez states, because “the future of Cuba is here” in Cuba, where “we reiterate that our loyalty to Fidel and Raúl will be invariable, and that the process of continuity headed by President Díaz-Canel is permanent and irreversible.”