Comment & analysis
A tribute To Fidel Castro
Kola Ibrahim
2008-06-03, Issue 377
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/48540
Printer friendly version
There are 3 comments on this article.
Kola Ibrahim looks at the legacy of Fidel Castro, the internationalization of struggle and calls for “working class activists from Kenya to Venezuela to Georgia to Pakistan and the rest of the world – to build a genuine working people’s political platform.”
This year, an ailing but still going Fidel Castro will turn 82. Castro used the early part of his life for the emancipation of Cuba and laying the basis for the radicalization of a whole new layer of youth in search of truth. Fidel along with the late Che Guevara led the armed struggle for the liberation of Cuba and indeed the whole Latin America. The eventual success of the armed struggle (itself a product of the inability of the Cuban capitalism under Batista to grant full democratic rights), after a series of setbacks, led to the formation of the first workers’ state. Fidel at first hesitated in moving the revolution (that was massively welcomed by the working poor of Cuba) forward towards socialism, but the pressure of events especially from the attacks by US imperialism; the further radicalization of the working poor of Cuba; and the resoluteness of some of the other leaders such as Che, pushed him to take to the road of socialism.
Less than three decades after the revolution, despite a US embargo and consequent isolation, the Cuban society under Fidel was able to achieve what many leading capitalist countries have not achieved in centuries. In Cuba one finds a well educated population (with over 90 percent literate) and a sound health system (with an average lifespan of 80 years). Of course, it can be argued that the presence of the Soviet Union under the Stalinists bureaucratic apparatus (a caricature of genuine socialist ideas as espoused by Marx, Engel and Lenin) helped Cuba, but the Soviet Union only supported Cuba as long as her expansionist interest was satisfied. This meant that Cuba would not criticize the Soviet bureaucracy, it would not struggle for democratic socialism within its own country, or internationalize the revolution and would accept Soviet goods at all cost.
All these had a terrible effect on Cuba as many inferior goods were brought in without any alternative. Any attempt to turn to the then “Communist” China would have incurred the wrath of the Stalinist bureaucracy in Russia. Lack of internationalization of the revolution along a Marxist line, at least within Latin America further isolated Cuba. Yet, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was still able to survive.
When Che went to the Soviet Union in early 1960’s, he was forced, despite his liking the Soviet Union, to criticize the bourgeoisie lifestyle of Soviet bureaucrats. This incurred the wrath of the Soviet bureaucracy, which tagged Che, a Trotskyite (a term used then to denigrate the followers and ideas of the foremost leader of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky who fought against Stalinist degeneration of the revolution after the death of Lenin). Also, when Che launched a guerilla campaign for an international revolution, he was categorized as an adventurer by the Soviet bureaucracy. This was contrary to a genuine Marxist position which would encouraged the building of revolutionary movements among the working people of the third world countries who were radicalized by the liberation movements and especially the Cuban revolution rather than launching a revolution over their heads thus giving the capitalist state excuse to behead genuine working people’s movement.
But the singular attempt and aspiration by Che (and Castro) for an international revolution against imperialism has inspired youth activists across the world (even capitalists have turned him into a commodity). The Soviet bureaucracy that had the power to build an international socialist movement deliberately abandoned this vision.
The best of the contemporary capitalist rulers from US to Europe to Asia cannot be compared to Fidel. He has inspired a generation to fight for their freedom while the former brought the working people of the world wars, misery, poverty and exploitation in the search of profit. Of course, Cuba needs democracy but not the market democracy that has led to misery for the working poor.
Cuba needs genuine socialist democracy where the huge gains of the nationalized economy will be realized by the collective leadership of the working people. There is need for a socialist multi-party democracy from local to national level in Cuba and the ability of the people to determine and discuss every government policy. This will appeal to the working poor of the world and lay the basis for revolution in the whole of Latin America (which is now under radicalization from Venezuela to Bolivia to Ecuador) and the world as a whole.
It is not for the capitalist apologists to teach Cuba democracy because the history of capitalism is that of subjugation of the people’s will. Is it not hypocritical for US to claim to be fighting for democracy in Cuba when the whole world rejected the US embargo on Cuba and yet the Bush government still maintains it? Despite the millions that protested around the world against the invasion on Iraq, the US along with the willing allies still went ahead. The same US government that is championing democracy supported Pakistani military rule for over eight years thus boosting the strength of militants.
Cuba has shown what can be achieved under a genuine socialist government. The task before the working people of Cuba is to prevent a restoration of capitalism. Despite the so-called increase in GDP by many third world countries in the past few years, hundreds of millions are still wallowing in abject poverty while a tiny clique continue to increase their wealth. Neo-liberalism will only mean diversion of the wealth for a tiny clique as has been seen in Nigeria where just one percent controls 80 percent of the nation’s wealth while over 70 percent go hungry.
To get another Castro in the world will require a revolution that will enthrone genuine socialist democracy. This is the real task before the working class activists from Kenya to Venezuela to Georgia to Pakistan and the rest of the world – to build a genuine working people’s political platform that will wrest power from the hands of the capitalist class and enthrone a genuine socialist society, and not to depend on capitalist politicians for liberation.
*Kola Ibrahim is a Member of the Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM), Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
*Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/
Readers' Comments
Let your voice be heard. Comment on this article.
"Less than three decades after the revolution, despite a US embargo and consequent isolation, the Cuban society under Fidel was able to achieve what many leading capitalist countries have not achieved in centuries."
This is wonderful, however, both Ibrahim and Tucker, the crtic below, forgot to mention "The Bay of Pigs" in which the capitalist invasion of Cuba was repulsed.
Tucker also crticizes Ibrahim for being both African and an apologist for Castro regarding democracy. Tucker should know that 80% of Cuba are descendants of Africans, in that, they are Black. Ibrahim as an African is closer to marjority of the Cubans because of their African ancestry. Perhaps Americans found it "normal" to want to dominate Cuba because of its racial composition, being majority Black, and wanting to prevent them from participating in the Cuban socialist revolution. Either way, African Cubans in Cuba lead lives slightly better than that of African Americans in USA, who are usually treated like non-citizens by the dominant whites, because of their history of slavery and systemic racism.
This is regardless of the election of an African-American president, who himself, had to make public his American birth certificate, because some of the white American birthers, for racist reasons, persisted in his so-called foreign birth.
What is this "democracy" being propagated that we all must take leassons in?
KME
Re: Responses to Article on Fidel Castro
I have read with much interest, reactions to my article on Fidel Castro. I have noted the following:
1. the websites using the article edited some vital part of the article that could have helped genuine seeker of the points I was raising. This has made the article to look confusing to some people. Therefore, I will post the article here again for possible re-publication.
2. most of the responses were based on sentiment and unwarranted pettiness rather than a critical analysis expected to Marxists (of course i do not expect that every respondent is a Marxist) or at least a leftist. I noted that Castro, along with Che Guevara, is one of the most enigmatic individuals of the last century despite the attempt to denigrate him by mouthpiece of the capitalist butchers. But we must also examine his evolution as a revolutionary so as not to place the whole struggle of humanity and indeed the Latin American working poor on just one individual. We in DSM, as Marxists belief that individual may play certain decisive role in history, but the role of individual is also subject to the prevailing objective (socio-economic situation - both local and international) and subjective (the consciousness of the masses, organizations of struggles, etc). Therefore, while Castro's doggedness also inspired generations of youth and working class people both during and after the revolution, he was also a product of events. If the working class has stayed away from the armed struggle, how would we describe Fidel today? We must examine the progress and the limit of the ideas of guerrilla movement as a counterweight to a mass movement. The defeat Che suffered in Bolivia is a lesson. While guerrilla may be successful to a certain stage in some countries (then), it may not be applicable now as imperialism now use its isolation from the mass to launch attack on guerrilla movements while even economic development has led to more urban societies (where there are more working class people than peasants) which may repel guerrilla movements. Even in those countries like Cuba where Guerrilla movements were successful, because of the lack of working people's initiative and involvement in how the movement development, it has impacted on the society that emerged from such movement - a society where working class democracy is limited, despite gains of nationalized economy.
3. to those who still regard Soviet Union has the best representation of a socialist society, they should sincerely ask themselves: why should Stalin closed down the Comintern (which it has destroyed ideological) only to move towards the imperialist United Nations? What informed the theory of socialism in one country (as against the Leninist internationalism)? Why the need to use tyranny to run a so-called socialist society? A sincere examination of this will reveal that despite the massive gain of the October, 1917 Russian Revolution, lack of working class democracy and internationalism led to the final collapse of Stalinist states (not socialism). What Stalinist Soviet Union practiced could not be called socialist internationalism, neither will Castro’s support for Angola stand close to Stalin’s.
4. Of course Cuba supported movement in many countries including Africa. But it must be noted that not only Cuba helped some colonial countries achieve independence, other pro-West countries like Nigeria also did so, therefore, the issue is not helping to fight colonialism, which is a progressive move. The point is helping develop working class international movements in those countries where there are struggles against imperialism and colonialism as a step toward diverting such movement to socialist goals which would have also helped resolve the isolation experienced by Cuba. This is what is needed not alliance with some capitalist (and indeed tyrannical and corrupt) government s in the name of building "progressive" support against imperialism. Te failure of Fidel Castro to condemn the Mexican government's attack on students' and workers' struggle in the late 1960s in the name of preserving friendship is a typical example of the failure of Cuba on internationalism.
Other issues raised will be addressed later. Thanks to all contributors. We in DSM in Nigeria are committed to socialist internationalism and for working class movements. The current wave of struggles against capitalism globally show the potential for revolutions in the world, the degeneracy of working class organizations has been a major hindrance to the achievement of this. This is the historic challenge before genuine working class activists. We enjoin you to join DSM (and help build socialism in Africa) and CWI today (and help build socialism in the world).
Kola Ibrahim
Kola Ibrahim's remarks about the achievements of the Cuban revolution and the negative effects of neo-liberalism are accurate enough; but
unfortunately much of the article is sheer drivel, reflecting either a paucity of historical knowledge and analysis on the part of the writer, or an attempt to conceal the truth.
A few examples:
"...the Soviet Union only supported Cuba as long as her expansionist interest were satisfied"
The Soviet Union gave diplomatic and material support to revolutionary
and anti-imperialist movements and states, but this was limited by its policy of 'peaceful co-existence' with the West and its position of
relative weakness (eg in material wealth, level of technology and military power) vis a vis the USA & its allies. It is certainly an
arguable view that the Soviet Communist Party's main international policy line was wrong, but to describe the USSR as expansionist flies
in the face of the facts.
"Cuba.. would not... internationalise the revolution..."
A truly bizarre assertion, particularly as it comes from an African writer. Cuban soldiers fought in the Congo in the 1960s, and thousands
more later on in Southern Africa. The defeat of the SADF at Cuito Canavale would have been impossible without the Cuban fighters.
"[Cuba] would accept Soviet goods at any cost... a terrible effect on Cuba as many inferior goods were brought in without any alternative."
In fact, Cuba got its petroleum, industrial equipment and consumer
goods from the USSR and other CMEA members at very low cost. They were paid for by Cuba supplying sugar at significantly above the prevailing world market price, and through 'soft' loans on terms which were very
advantageous for the Cubans.
Through these arrangements, which are usually described as a 'Soviet subsidy' by Western commentators, living standards in Cuba rose very
substantially, despite the US blockade. It was when they came to an end that the Cuban economy crashed, leading to the 'Special Period' of
great material hardship.
Further. Kola Ibrahim notes that "It is not for the capitalist apologists to teach Cuba democracy..."- but presumably it is OK for
him or her as a non-capitalist apologist' to try to teach democracy to Cuba:
"There is need for a socialist multi-party democracy from local to national level in Cuba and the ability of the people to determine and
discuss every government policy."
Well, Cuban democracy is far from perfect as even its Communist Party leaders would agree. But by making this remark without noting the
relatively very high level of participation by the Cubans in choosing their representatives and deciding policy, Kola Ibrahim conceals the reality in terms of democracy in Cuba.
It is unworthy that a supposed 'tribute' to Fidel should contain such falsehoods and distortions.
Noah Tucker
Co-editor, http://21stcenturysocialism.com/
Noah Tucker