SWP shits attack Cuba

by OK Thu Jul 11, 2002 14:14

The SWP say that Cuba is a capitalist country! If it is capitalist how can you have the cheek in turning up selling your paper at the meeting Che Geuvara's daughter was at? How can you use Che's image when you say he fought to introduce a capitalist system?

The SWP adopted State Capitalism in order to seem respectable enough to a layer of youth in Western Europe.

Personally I do not think that Cuba is socialist, however I do recognise it isn't capitalist. Cuba has a planned economy which has brought definite gains to the people of Cuba.

Is there really any SWP members that honestly believe that the USSR, Eastern Europe etc were capitalist countries?

by (A)-commie Thu Jul 11, 2002 14:44

Im not in SWP but cuba etc are definitly statecapitalist countries.

by Durruti - Anarchist Federation Ireland Thu Jul 11, 2002 15:31 ireaf at yahoo dot ie

Che may look like the archetypal romantic revolutionary. In reality he was a tool of the Stalinist power blocs and a partisan of nuclear war. His attitudes and actions reveal him to be no friend of the working masses, whether they be workers or peasants.

The Anarchist Federation published a very interesting article on "comrade" che in our magazine Organise issue #47. This interesting insight of the "great" revolutionary can be read at http://www.geocities.com/afederationireland/pages/afi_organise_47_che.htm

Enjoy!

Durruti

One must wonder how the swp could attack Che and at the same time defend Trotsky, Lenin and co.

Personal Capacity

by chekov Thu Jul 11, 2002 15:44

Attacking the SWP for selling papers outside the Guevara meeting is plain stupid. If they figure that there will be a lot of people at the meeting who might be interested in their ideas, then it obviously makes sense to try to sell them their papers, regardless of whether they agree with the speaker. The sad fact is that Guevara's daughter had the celebrity factor to attract a large number of people who rarely shift themselves from their comfortable sofas to attend political events and leftists of all persuasions had a chance to reach a large number of people who they don't normally have access to.

The point of whether you choose to define Cuba as state-capitalist, socialist or whatever is not really that important, what is important is that it is an authoritarian dictatorship and a police state where the most fundamental freedoms are denied to the people who are unfortunate enough to have been born there. Only the purposely blind could see a model of a desirable society in Castro's dictatorship.

Hagiography of Che and Fidel because they fought, suffered and died is also stupid. It is possible to fight, suffer and die for evil as well as good. Didn't Hitler suffer and die for his beliefs? However, I'd admit that in Che's case the intentions were generally good, although his desire for self sacrifice and his tendancy to substitute will-power for realistic political thought and analysis meant that he pissed his intentions away in such failures as Cuba, Congo and Bolivia.

by ... Thu Jul 11, 2002 15:48

The article by the Anarchist Federation is vague, unsourced, selective propaganda. The author chooses single events, with gaps of years between them, to tar Geuvara with the Stalinist brush, totally failing to look at Che's favourable characteristics and focus on events like the execution of the Batistiano war criminals and of people who had collaborated with the enemy. Whoever wrote the article is an intellectual minnow with little knowledge of what he's talking about.

Che Guevara is a Cuban hero, who helped free that country from US oppression and from the dictator Fulgencio Batista. He was murdered by the Bolivian army in collusion with the CIA because his unfloundering commitment to equality and freedom was becoming a beacon of hope throughout Latin America. His achievements far outweight his flaws, which pale in comparison to the murderous actions of those who laid the foundation for most other societies.

by Durruti - AFI Thu Jul 11, 2002 16:46 ireaf at yahoo dot ie

"The author chooses single events, with gaps of years between them, to tar Geuvara with the Stalinist brush, totally failing to look at Che's favourable characteristics and focus on events like the execution of the Batistiano war criminals and of people who had collaborated with the enemy."

In fairness this article was written for Organise magazine, not much space to go into complete detail on the ups and downs of che's character and activities. But Che singled out North Korea and China for special praise in regards to their high quality of communism. In fact Che had lauded China as an example for the Americas. Correct me if I am wrong but both North Korea and China are stalinist states.

by Bart Thu Jul 11, 2002 17:50

Who writes the paper "Resistance"? I thought the SWP rag was called "The Socialist Worker". Is it not the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation who print "Resistance" in which case their opposition to Che is understandable on ideological grounds.
Perhaps the original post writer was confused by all the acronyms or else the SWP write another paper that I haven't heard of.
Could someone clarify this?

by Des Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:07

The idea of a shower such as the SWP slagging off people such as Fidel Castro and Che is stomach churning. They built a progressive society where education, health, amongst other service are free to all. Cuba is an example to other latin american countries where the level of poverty and deprivation are mind boggling.

by Durruti - AFI Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:44 ireaf at yahoo dot ie

Resistance is the monthly agitational bulletin of the Anarchist Federation Ireland. It includes articles from our members, news and event listings. You can download copies from the AFI website [ http://www.afireland.cjb.net ] or go to direct at [ http://www.geocities.com/afederationireland/pages/afi_resistance.htm ] Hope this clears up the confusion.

Regards

by blisset Thu Jul 11, 2002 19:10

start seeing them in everything - maybe y'all should join and dstry thm frm wthn

by k Thu Jul 11, 2002 20:31

yeah the af have a mag called resisatnce, but th eswp's (or is it globalise - same diff) have a theoritical magazine/journal called resistance ireland as far as i am aware. cuba is not state capitalist, nor is it a socialist paradise - but to may youth and workers it may represent an alternative to the current system.

by Dustbin of History Thu Jul 11, 2002 23:24

All I can say is I wonder why some many Cubans flee the place.

by Oliver O'Driscoll Thu Jul 11, 2002 23:48

Some of those who fled to "freedom" ended up on the streets, (welcome to freedom guys), others ended up back in Guantanamo, courtesy of uncle sam. Fidel Castro can be subjected to critisism but nonetheless, Cuba is still an example to all the other states of latin america.

by fuinseog Fri Jul 12, 2002 01:07

"... a large number of people who rarely shift themselves from their comfortable sofas to attend political events and leftists of all persuasions had a chance to reach a large number of people who they don't normally have access to."

Well God spare them whether they left comfortable sofas or screaming children if the best they could get is the kind of drivel which passes for debate in SWP publications and indeed on this newswire.

"The point of whether you choose to define Cuba as state-capitalist, socialist or whatever is not really that important, what is important is that it is an authoritarian dictatorship and a police state where the most fundamental freedoms are denied to the people who are unfortunate enough to have been born there. Only the purposely blind could see a model of a desirable society in Castro's dictatorship."

Cuba is not a dictatorship. That's simply US propaganda. It is not a dictatorship because Castro is not a dictator. Rule is by the Party. Not that that's necessarily better (though I think it usually is), but it is not the same.

It is an authoritarian state. Political freedoms are curtailed. It is a police state but not in the East German style.

Despite that it has quite a few elements which are models of desirable society. I would instance health, education, agriculture, foreign aid and recent foreign policy.

It has the most highly educated and politicised population in Latin America and a high standard of public political discourse. That discourse is of course limited by a draconian restriction of freedom of expression. I don't think the absence of the Murdoch press and advertising based television is any loss of any freedom for anyone but the inability to produce a leaflet or political newsletter is a severe infringement on human rights.

Most significantly Cuba ALONE ON THE PLANET has resisted US imperialism for over 40 years. This is because the revolution, with all its flaws and its suppression of dissent retains a good bit of active support and lots of passive support. And because people know what the alternative they are being offered is. Aside from it's other flaws, it's an alternative which doesn't offer much more in the way of political freedoms to most of the population, who in case, in any country aren't as concerned about political freedoms as about getting on with life.

If people want to have meetings about Cuba, they might consider discussing how to defend revolutionary change from imperialism.

by Ollie - Katalyzer Fri Jul 12, 2002 01:29

yea it's not ideal, but in latin american terms cuba is doing OK. Good life expectency, good education, enough doctors to 'give' a few thousand (yes thousand) to the hurricane mitch relief effort in central america, landlords can't charge you more than 10% of your wage in rent ,most people are home owners (over 80%)...and, over the last 10 years it has become the envy of all organic food producers. 60% of fruit and veg is grown in urban allotments and gardens, which were 'handed back' to the people, as were the food-producing co-ops. So it's less big brothery than it was in some ways. All of the food produced in this way is organic, but by developing and implementing agroecological principles almost single-handedly, they have kept production levels up, refuting the usual 'organic = lower production' critique. And agroecological principles landed onto some form of marxism could be seen as a move away from the western rational model which spawned marx's dialectical materialism and towards ecofeminism, imo.

So less toxins in the tastier, healthier food, less of a division of labour suffered by farmers (agroecological production allows for this), no MNC's pawning off poisons, soil in better condition....
For a non-state sponsored link:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr118g.htm
Also, the guardian carried an article on the cuban organic revolution recently enough - it should be archived on their website.

And before anyone starts, yes the embargo has led them towards this method of production, but they have thrived relative to how common perceived wisdom expected them to cope. Necessity breeds ingenuity, as they say. And lets face it ,local production is better for the world's environment too (why ship a head of brocolli from new zealand...)so we're all benefiting ecologically from this.(less petrol reserves used up and polluting the planet)

However, freedoms we take for granted are non-existent, and this does counterbalance cuban's relative quality of life vis-a-vis health and education.

But as I said, in comparison to its neighbours ,it is an OK place to live. Few posting to this site would argue than Nicaragua today, or Columbia, Bolivia, and most spectacularily, Argentina are 'models' of anything other than the failure of neoliberalism.
As regards the exiles, well, Chile had 'em too before 1973, Venezula today has a pissed off elite begging for another coup...when that level of redistribution of wealth goes on, there will be a large number of disaffected. These people are often articulate ,westernized folk we can empathise with on some level, so they can be quite (perhaps disproportionatly) vocal. And they are entitled to their anger ,but , so are the cuban people entitled to their basic levels of food, health and education.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that if I grew up in Cuba, I would most probably have been considered a dissident, and jailed for having 'unorthadox' opinions! (esp in the pre agroecological days...)

Perhaps the SWP and Anarchists need to be more gratious and acknowledge the definate benefits that have come, and the basic difficulty in the internationalist struggle. (the POUM, however noble and right on in every possible way, lost in Spain lads, remember?) Its easy to talk about the problems ,and naturally you all want to distance yourselves from the 'get back to russia' brigade, but Cuba ,for all its flaws, isn't China and isn't the USSR. It has more 'dynamic tension', and its still a work in progress ,to some real extent.

And it was a brotel and mafia run casino island 45 years ago, so progress should be taken on face value terms, imo.

So no it ain't ideal, but personally, I reckon that Castro and co. would have been overthrown by now if they were that unpopular. Let's face it, it wouldn't be hard for the US to fund it!

by Phuq Hedd Fri Jul 12, 2002 03:35

Yes, Cuba is probably better than other Latin American countries for healthcare. Yes, Castro is a dictator and represses free speech. There are plenty of anarchist/libertarian prisoners of conscience in Cuba. Pretending that Castro is not a dictator is ludicrous.

There's a good online history of Cuba at http://www.illegalvoices.com/apoc/books/cuban/chapt14.html

Two extracts are included below. The first deals with the situation just as Castro had established himself as the "Maximum Leader". The second deals with the parallels between the Castroist market reforms in the late 80's and the New Economic Policies introduced by Lenin in the Russia.
(note that PCC was the Communist party whcih existed prior to Castro and was hostile to Castro's reformist social-democratic program and also to the syndicalists and anarchists).

-----------------------------------------------
Later that year, just before falling victim to “revolutionary” censorship, Solidaridad Gastronómica, the ALC journal, published its final issue. That issue, of December 15, 1960, contained a front page article commemorating Durruti’s death during the defense of Madrid. In it, Solidaridad noted, “A dictatorship can originate in the politics of class domination.” An editorial in the same issue stated:

A collective dictatorship . . . of the working class, or to use the terminology of the day, a people’s dictatorship, would be a contradiction in terms, given that the characteristic of all dictatorships, including “peoples’” or “proletarian,” is the placing of power in the hands of a few persons—not its sharing by the populace. Dictators have absolute dominion not only over the oppressed political and social classes, but above all over the members of the supposed dominant class. The day will never come when there is a dictatorship of workers or proletarians, campesinos and students . . . or whatever you want to call it . . . The power of dictators falls upon all . . . not only upon industrialists, landowners, and plantation owners . . . but also upon the proletariat and the people in general—and also upon those “revolutionaries” who do not directly participate in the exercise of power.

As for non-Cuban anarchist analyses of the situation, the German libertarian Agustín Souchy journeyed to Havana in the summer of 1960. Souchy had been invited by the government to study the situation of Cuban agriculture and to issue his opinions on it, and many anarchists were enthusiastic about his visit. The German writer was warmly greeted by Cuba’s anarchists on August 15, 1960.

Souchy was a student of agriculture and had written a widely known (in Europe) pamphlet, The Israeli Cooperatives, about the organization of the kibbutzim. This was the reason that the Cuban government had invited him to visit Cuba—it expected something similar from him; it hoped that he would write an endorsement of its gigantic agrarian program which would, among other things, be useful as propaganda in the anarchist media and among libertarian Cubans.

This didn’t happen. Souchy traveled the island with his eyes wide open, and his analysis of the situation couldn’t have been more pessimistic. He concluded that Cuba was going too near the Soviet model, and that the lack of individual freedom and individual initiative could lead to nothing but centralism in the agricultural sector, as was already notable in the rest of the economy. His analysis was issued in a pamphlet titled Testimonios sobre la Revolución Cubana, which was published without going through official censorship. Three days after Souchy left the island, the entire print run of the pamphlet was seized and destroyed by the Castro government, on the suggestion of the PCC leadership. Fortunately, this attempt at suppression was only partially successful, as the anarchist publisher Editorial Reconstruir in Buenos Aires issued a new printing of the work in December 1960, with a new prologue by Jacobo Prince.
---------------------------------------------

Extract2:
---------------------------------------------
This was well known when the state-controlled labor union central, the Confederación de Trabajadores Cubanos Revolucionaria, met in its 39th conference in October 1979. The leaders of the Castroite workers’ organization noted “a series of grave alterations in Cuban labor life.” The hierarchs of the CTCR accused Cuba’s workers of “lack of discipline, thefts, and negligence.” They ended their analysis of the Cuban labor situation with some truly astonishing statistics. They stated that, “[Of] 1,600,000 persons in the active population (labor force), only half a million produce anything.” That is to say, if we can trust these statistics, that less than a third of Cuba’s labor force was participating usefully in the economy.

This data, obtained from a “Report of the Conference,” couldn’t be more revealing. It indicates that a majority of Cuba’s workers, because of lack of motivation or some other reason, were refusing to work for “the construction of socialism”—a slogan that emanated constantly from the highest places in the dictatorship, and was repeated ad nauseam in every communications medium imaginable. The Cubans had lost faith in their government and would soon lose it in their country.

In 1982, the Cuban state put in place a law that permitted foreign companies, for the first time in over two decades, to invest in Cuba. This in large part corresponded to the Soviet New Economic Policy of the 1920s which, like the Cuban measure, was instituted for the purpose of avoiding “state decomposition.” This policy of capitalist investment would, ironically, have a bright future in “socialist” Cuba.

The smaller scale agricultural reform of allowing “farmers’ free markets” had a much darker future. Under this reform, the state allowed campesinos to sell some of their farm products directly to consumers outside of the state rationing system. It was motivated to permit this largely because of its own inability to reliably supply rationed products. This small-scale experiment was rapidly shut down by the government, which reasoned in the admirable style of scientific socialism—at the same time that it was encouraging investments by multinational corporations—that farmers’ markets would create a dangerous petit bourgeoisie, in contradiction to the principles of revolutionary socialism.

The sociopolitical crisis of the USSR at the end of the 1980s, and the sad ending in 1991 of the system imposed on the Russian people by Lenin, had deplorable consequences for the Cuban economy. During the last five years of Soviet assistance, 1986–1990, economic aid averaged over $5 billion per year, a figure which was impossible to maintain by a disintegrating political system. The Castro regime decided to survive the socialist camp disaster by changing its political economy and entering into a “Special Period,” which would lead to a social situation worse than anything that had gone before, and to a quality of life worse than that in Third World countries. (The “Special Period” is still in effect.)

To avoid anything similar to the “Bucharest Syndrome” (the shooting of the dictator by his own forces), the regime instituted even more repressive measures, increased the severity of the political laws, and targeted its own military. General Arnaldo Ochoa, a national hero of the African campaigns decorated as a “Hero of the Republic of Cuba,” was, because of suspicion of disloyalty, condemned to death; he was shot by a firing squad on July 13, 1989. Colonel Antonio de la Guardia was shot on the same day, as were two other military officers, Amado Padrón and Jorge Martínez. Patricio de la Guardia, Antonio’s brother, and a general with the elite Special Troops (Tropas Especiales), was condemned to 30 years in prison. This purge of high-ranking military men ended in September 1989 with the arrest and sentencing of José Abrantes, a Ministry of the Interior (secret police) general. Abrantes died soon thereafter under mysterious circumstances while in prison.

by Ollie - Katalyzer Fri Jul 12, 2002 04:10

useful addition to the debate, though I would add that most of the quoted extracts and comment relate to the past, as opposed to the recent past...I suppose one of my points is that specifically in the last 5 years ,agroecology (and some of the hard-left critiqued reforms) has helped improve the quality of life for Cubans..even that bogeyman of barometers, the GDP, has risen by 3% a year recently in Cuba.

by Emma Goldman - AF Alba Fri Jul 12, 2002 11:17

As an anarchist I believe in libertarian communism therefore the idea of any state and capitalism is anaethema to me. However let's have a bit more honesty in the debate about Cuba in the year 2002. I'm not going to go over the Che years, the special period etc but speak honestly as a young person who actually visited Cuba last summer.

I saw no evidence of it being any kind of police state. Whilst driving from Santa Clara to Trinidad I saw 30 young cadets/police/soldiers having to hitchhike home because they had no cars tec. Given the fuel shortages that is understandable. What I did see in Havana every 4 or 5 blocks was one guy in a blue uniform who I assume was from the CDRs. How are the CDRs organised? Are they democratically elected neighbourhood assemblies? I don't know.

What I do know is Varadero is tourist ghetto with Cubans desperate to work there and giving up being doctors and teachers to work in Spanish hotels. Locals in Havana were just desperate to sell us unlabelled cigars. I understand that Cuba needs the money from tourists (like I was myself) to counterbalance the blockade by the US. It must be remembered Cuba was a single-crop third world economy which has now excellent health and education. However the USSR went from backward peasant Russia to putting men and women in space.
However socialism to me is the abolition of wages and equality for all. Obviously Cuba can't do that in isolation. The best service we can do for cuban anarchism is to fight for it here in Scotland, England, Wales, ireland and everywhere else.

The US spent $15.6m last year in grants to various cuban transition programmes to prepare the way for a return to the unfettered neo-liberalism it has forced on the rest of the continent. I hope dearly that when Castro dies the cuban people fight off the onslaught from the US and replace the system they have with libertarian communism but given a choice between the US system and the present one in Cuba I think I know which side I'd have to take. Let's leave Cuba until we've sorted out our own disgusting countries eh?

EG

by Rose Fri Jul 12, 2002 12:02

Every ounce of humanity or enthusiam has been crushed out of them by obedience to the Party Line. They all repeat exactly the same thing over and over like a bunch of mindless automatons.

by Cooley Boy - IST Fri Jul 12, 2002 13:25

There is a trap in which socialists can easily become ensnared; the argument that the absence of democracy or human rights is only a problem in bourgeois societies ­ but not in Cuba. Why? The fact that workers cannot control their own destiny has always been defended on the grounds that the leaders know best. Not many Cubans believe it any more.

The SWP have never argued that Cuba is the worst offender in this respect ­ only that it is not qualitatively different from other societies which make no claim to be socialist. Some say that Cuba 'outperforms most of the Third World on collective social and economic rights'. Yet strike action is illegal and quickly repressed; the economy is dominated by multinational corporations now profiting from their investments in tourism, oil and industry.

The role of the Cuban state today is not to defend the Cuban workers against these industries, but to create the best conditions for their investment. For Cuban workers the result is the same as in any country creating such conditions, exploitation and a declining lifestyle. They can turn to prostitution, of course ­ as 30,000 women have done ­ or to the demeaning business of serving tourists. There is no socialist defence of either.

Cuba has systematically oppressed gay people and 'contained' people with Aids in military re-education units (UMAPs); dissidents are persecuted and denounced as agents of imperialism. The rectification that Ollie refers to mobilised the masses of Cubans behind Castro in anticipation of the scarcity to come after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet it did nothing about the obvious and widening gulf between a minority of wealthy Cubans and a majority whose lives grow more difficult by the day. This is not propaganda; it is visible to any casual passer-by in the streets of Havana.

Is it collusion with imperialism to honestly expose these realities or to make it clear that there is no direct democracy in Cuba ­ that the much vaunted mass organisations are appointed by the tiny, unelected and shrinking elite that control the Cuban state? Our consistent involvement in the anti-imperialist movement over the years is proof of our resolute opposition to the role of the US.

The real issue is this ­ socialism is a project for the self-emancipation of the working class. How can collusion with an oppressive and undemocratic state which implements the imperatives of capitalism assist that process?

The comrades say Cuba has no choice. The Cuban state may have no alternative if it wishes to negotiate with the world system. But the Cuban working class does have another choice ­ resistance, struggle, and the building of a workers' movement linking all those who face the same forces. That is not a third way but a genuine internationalism

See the link for
Cuba, Castro and Socialism

by fuinseog Fri Jul 12, 2002 23:44

I just had a look at the last site mentioned. Again, as Emma Goldman pointed out above, there's lots on the past compared to the present. No-one would consider a discussion of Irish politics which focussed on the 1950s to be of much relevance to analysing the current situation. And discussing Che is like discussing Padraig Pearse. It may not be obvious to some, but things have changed and changed many times in many ways since the revolution (here as well as in Cuba). And even an authoritarian state is not a monolithic organisation.

Our Trotskyist friend tells us that "Cuba has systematically oppressed gay people and 'contained' people with Aids in military re-education units (UMAPs)"

Well, I could judge Trostskyist attitudes to homosexuality by their publications of the 60s and the far-left idea that it was a form of bourgeois decadence but that would be pointless. Similarly the systematic oppression of gay people is no longer a feature of the Cuban state. Attitudes to homosexuality have gone through various phases, some quite vicious, since the revolution but nowadays things are a lot better. While there isn't systematic oppression, there is harassment, including serious police harassment, but the official policy is opposed to it.

"the economy is dominated by multinational corporations now profiting from their investments in tourism, oil and industry."

"The role of the Cuban state today is not to defend the Cuban workers against these industries, but to create the best conditions for their investment."

There are lots of problems with the increasing disparities in income in Cuba, but this is a mischaracterisation. The economy is not dominated by multinational corporations, it is dominated by State companies. The suggestion above is nonsense. The role of the Cuban state vis-a-vis multinationals remains to make as good a deal with them as they can in order to use the money for the state's massive expenses. This is of course not the same as to protect the workers of the multinationals as best they can, but you cannot pretend not to be aware that these workers are the ones who form part of the wealthier section of Cuban society.

"the obvious and widening gulf between a minority of wealthy Cubans and a majority whose lives grow more difficult by the day. This is not propaganda; it is visible to any casual passer-by in the streets of Havana."

I wouldn't seek to diminish the income disparities in Cuba, nor the shock and resentment it can cause in what previously was a very egalitarian society. But there is not a "gulf" in Latin American terms, nor a gulf in North American terms, nor a gulf in Irish terms. Go have a look at the streets of Dublin. This is not to defend the situation, but to put it in context. The fundamental situation that everyone in Cuba has equal access to top quality health and education and at least basic (organic!) food and shelter need cannot be forgotten.

"Is it collusion with imperialism to honestly expose these realities"
It is collution with imperialism to misportray and misinterpret the situation as you do.

"there is no direct democracy in Cuba ­ that the much vaunted mass organisations are appointed by the tiny, unelected and shrinking elite that control the Cuban state?"

I have made clear that I am fundamentally opposed to the repression of dissidents, free speech and uncontrolled community politics in Cuba. The nature of the democratic system is a different question. I am not sure but it seems to me that the structures of Cuban politics are possibly far more democratic that conventional electoral democracy. It has been suggested that while you have little choice over who makes the decisions, you have more say, through CDRs and the mass organisations in what decision is made. Certainly many of the changes in the special period were discussed at neighbourhood level in the CDRs. Of course that discussion is limited within the context of support for the system and of course, as in most places, most people aren't very interested in politics.

"Our consistent involvement in the anti-imperialist movement over the years is proof of our resolute opposition to the role of the US."

And your consistent hijacking and abuse of that movement to build your own organisation is proof of what exactly?

It is particularly unpleasant that the SWP should organise a meeting on Cuba with the intention of analysing real, exaggerated and imaginary flaws in a far-away country for the purpose of attracting people to its form of organising. Why not a meeting to support human-rights and environmental activists in Cuba, to defend Cuba against imperialism, to honestly consider the political and economic situation etc. But then we know that there is only one goal and that is building your organisation.

by Ollie - Katalyzer Mon Jul 15, 2002 04:44

A few (admittedly 1996) figures I've dug up, just to give some referenced stats (what, not just a link to my own or my party/organization 's website...on indymedia...actual externally referenced figures...?!?)

Cuba:
life expectency 75 yrs (US 76)
94% literacy (as in Austria or Sweeden)
infant mortality 9 per 1000 (US 9 per 1000)
Sources: South America, Central America and the Caribbean, Europa 1995; Caribbean Insight; Latin America Monitor; Human Development Report 1995; World Bank, World Development Report 1995; State of the World’s Children 1996.

for more comprehensive info, you could try http://newint.org
and type "country profile cuba" into the searchengine, and work from there.

And I'll reiterate the fact that there is a lack of cultural and political freedoms in Cuba. No question. Could I personally handle that? Probably not. (Although all that sunshine and organic food...mmmm ;-) ) But I'll also remind people to contextualise Cuba as both
1:Latin American
2: A communist country just off the coast of the US.

It's difficult to judge Cuba from a perspective within Rich capitalist countries in Europe, with their particular socio-cultural formulations. (Maybe only Cuban-born people who've travelled the world and gained PhD's in Politics/Sociology outside of Cuba, without somehow loosing touch with 'real' Cubans have a snowball's...) So "I" would be a different person trying to contextualize Cuba, if I wasn't Irish and of my own particular socio-cultural backround. Maybe someone who's travelled extensively through Central and South America could help clarify how, for example, masculinist and homophobic (or otherwise) other Certral and South American countries are? Essentially, I'd like to know if Cuba is typical or different, if such a broad and vague question can be asked.

I do know that women make up 43% of the workforce, and that's up from 20% pre-rev. And for once, it's not just the shit jobs:
More than 60% of scientific/technical workers are women and they are also the majority in healthcare and education. 22% in politics, however only 12% at 'top' ... sourced at...

http://www.newint.org/issue301/facts.html

and so this part of newswire continues, with almost as many installments as the Ansbacker...