It's a misnomer to call the replacement of one dictator or authoritarian ruler by another of the same ilk a revolution. Revolutions bring freedom not tyranny. The dictator Battista was replaced by the dictator Castro, and a million Cubans fled tyranny. I hope for a real revolution in Cuba not the replacement of one dictator by another.

Hope springs eternal for those of us on the Left, idiotically 'eternal', it seems. After 42 years, do we still 'hope' for revolution in Cuba ?

How is it that two brothers from an elite family, educated under a reactionary system, can rule a country of twelve million people for 42 years ? Isn't one of the rationales for a people's revolution, the flowering of the genius of the ordinary people ? Isn't a revolutionary education system supposed to develop people's potential better than a reactionary, elitist one ? How many geniuses might there be amongst twelve million people, given a genuinely progressive education system ? After 42 years, a working life-time ?

So what is holding them back ? Is the Castros' domination part of the solution or part of the problem ? Can anybody honestly claim that Cuba has a genuinely socialist system ?

Joe

How fitting that the pin - up boy of the left, Marxist American hater John Pilger was chosen recipient of the 2009 Sydney Peace Prize sponsored byThe Sydney Peace Foundation.

"Pilger in case you are unfamiliar with him, calls himself a “journalist” and is a longtime critic of all things American. He is a terrorist-sympathizing Marxist who has thrown his lot in with leftist causes all over the world. He is a huge admirer of Cuban dictator and leftist icon Fidel Castro . Condemning "American imperialism," Pilger has praised Castro's Cuba as a nation that provides "a crucial model for challenging power." Pilgers has great admiration for Venezuela’s soon-to-be-President-for-life Hugo Chávez .
Pilger signed on to the idea of suppressing the Venezuelan people’s freedom of speech–a remarkable achievement for a journalist!

Pilger’s hatred of America is so profound that he once admitted, that he approved of “the killing of American, British or Australian troops” by their enemies in Iraq, because “they’re legitimate targets.” His other favorite target is Israel, and it is his contention that Western support for that country is the main cause for the persistent unrest in the Middle East. "
...by ccartaginese

Pilger wrote and directed the documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror.Pilger opens the program by accusing the U.S. of being "a rapacious imperial power," and asserting that America and the UK are jointly responsible for "the terrorism that dare not speak it's name, because it's our terrorism."

Pilger identifies the Western pursuit of globalisation as a chief cause of contemporary Islamic terrorism; and he states that "'[t]he War on Terrorism' is terrorism."
In the doumentary Nicaragua: A Nation's Right to Survive, he offers a sympathetic portrayal of the Fidel Castro -backed communist Sandinistas while depicting the Nicaraguan peasants who opposed them (in the 1980s) as murderous devils.
Recently Fidel castro himself speaking of Communism for Cuba said…”I may have been wrong” …Doh!

.

NAPOLEON, STALIN, MAO, CASTRO ...

.

Were they revolutionaries ? Perhaps. Were they dictators ? No doubt. Were they "nationalists" ? Probably. Did they do more harm than good ? Absolutely.

Were they strong leaders ? Yes. Did they change the course of history ? Yes. Is their legacy totally negative ? No.

All four are major historical figures. Castro is the only one still alive today. He is about to celebrate his 85th birthday on 13 august 2011.

Perhaps that is what propmpted John Pilger to write this short, personal, nostalgic note on a country he visited for the first time in 1967, the year of the abortive Cuban guerilla invasion of the beach of Machurucuto in Venezuela.

It seems to me to be a pleasant reading, touristic flash-back. A sort of cultural, historical postcard. Nothing to justify the harsh critical porojections posted here.

.

Where did socialist revolutions go wrong ? (Let me count the ways!) But one common factor seems to be that Marx's ideal dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. ultimately of all people, since all people will be part of the proletariat. Yeah, right) rapidly degenerates into the dictatorship of the party of the proletariat. In turn, this very rapidly degenerates into the dictatorship of a clique within the party of the proletariat, and almost immediately into a dictatorship of the Leader of the clique of the party of the proletariat.

Could this have ever been avoided ? I don't know and it obviously wasn't. Can the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ever clean up its act and avoid this happening again ? Well, where is the proletariat these days ? 'Workers' used to denote labourers in manufacturing, mining, on the land, at shop counters. But their numbers have massively declined over the past fifty years - union membership in Australia is now in the teens, and even that is probably mostly professionals and semi-professionals. The work of the working class proper has been contracted out, to tradies, or shipped overseas, to produce all those cheap goods that we buy.

Contra Marx, there has never been a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country, where presumably the political maturity of the proletariat was most advanced. So maybe he got that wrong, and I suspect that he knew that after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871 - maybe even just after the ra-ra street-and-barricade revolutions of 1848.

Time for a new paradigm, comrades !

Joe

.

Dear Joe Loadmouth,

.

After Jesus and Marx ... here comes the Spring ! For each epoch it's own particular form of revolution.

Jesus and Marx each made his mark in a particular historical context. Each should be judged accordingly. Not in today's context.

Both these gentlemen had noble intentions. Both were sincere. Marx appears to have been honest. Perhaps Jesus was too though the "miraculous" feats that have been attributed to him give rise to serious doubts about his honesty. Let us say that he may, at least, been prone to over-exageration or excessive imagination. Perhaps due to his youthful desire to convince or an under-estimation of the level of intelligence of his potential world-wide audience.

All forms of dictatorship are detestable, recto/verso, whether they be royalty-aristocracy-bourgeoisie or proletariat. All forms of authority inevitably become authoritarian sooner or later. Hence the necessity of frequent democratic change and the elimination of all forms of political status and privilege due to inheritance.

The world has changed and we have changed with it.

As you rightly point out: "Contra Marx, there has never been a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country ...". Neither has there ever been any country whose royalty-aristocracy-bougeoisie has peacefully and willingly ceded political, social and economic power and authority to, let us say, the "proletariat" or today's equivalent.

.