The Lone Penman ([info]rayne_vandunem) wrote in [info]castrolistas,

OK, a short quiz for anybody who is of Cuban ancestry and hates Castro

1. If not Castro, would you rather have someone who resembles:

Rafael Trujillo Molina
Anastacio Somoza
Manuel Noriega
Fulgencio Batista
Lula da Silva
Hugo Chavez
Salvador Allende
Augusto Pinochet
Daniel Ortega
the Duvaliers (Papa and Baby Doc)
Juan Peron
Jose Figueres Ferrer

2. What do you think about, or how do you relate to Afro-Cubans and their traditions?

3. Do you think that Cuba should walk its own path rather than to stick with everything that the United States says?

4. Do you think that Cuba can achieve social change for its most impoverished without Communism?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: even though I may have started this community (a while back), I'm not necessarily pro-Castro (nor anti-, for that matter). Rather, I started this community simply because, well, there just wasn't a Castro discussion community here.

My stance: while I'm sure Castro isn't as egalitarian as he may sound these days (in fact, I think Chavez in caracas has done a better job within that arena), he *was* one of the few leaders in Latin America who had the balls to consistently voice their stalwart (although not necessarily progressive) opposition against U.S. policy towards the region. Back in the day, sure, he established a system that was beneficiary to those who had nothing under Batista (and he provided an example to other peoples who were in a similar state under the ancien regimes of that era). But now....well, while we still have Big Baby Bush to worry about, Castro has not shown enough flexibility to necessary change, which shows in the growing stagnation of the Cuban government (despite what even *he* may say).

Cuba, in a way, has become alot like a military fortress in Vietnam (I think that was featured in Apocalypse Now): Cuba may have established a system of defense against the U.S. forays into the region, but the war over the domination of this same area is now being won (gradually) by the New Left of the likes of Hugo Chavez and Lula da Silva. Thus, the catch lies in this: Cuba isn't moving forward along with the rest of Latin America, as if its caught in a time warp of the likes of the Soviet Bloc prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This is why I fear for the Cuban people. If Castro is to stay in power, then, to the benefit of the people of Cuba, he has to make some desperate changes in order for his country to emerge into the world market and to keep Cuba from going downhill (socially speaking). If Castro and the CPC is to lose power (thus satisfying Miami and Washington), then, for the Cuban people and the disenfranchised among them who may result out of such a possibly-turbulent shift in the governance of the country, let the changes be gradual.

Otherwise, I'm certain, Cuba will turn into an American Belarus.

Thank You.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 12 comments

[info]heavenablaze

September 3 2005, 21:59:04 UTC 6 years ago

How ironic that an American slave defends another form of slavery in another country. Go die somewhere, the rest of the gene pool will appreciate it.

[info]rayne_vandunem

September 4 2005, 00:42:59 UTC 6 years ago

How ironic that an American slave defends another form of slavery in another country.

"descendant".

American slave *descendant*.

Get your vocabulary straight, for starters.

Go die somewhere, the rest of the gene pool will appreciate it.

If the term "rest of the gene pool" means YOU, then yeah, I'm sure that you'd appreciate my demise.

I don't plan for my bodily departure happening anytime soon, however.

Do you?

[info]heavenablaze

September 4 2005, 02:03:22 UTC 6 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot to mention "descendant" in that line, although it should be considered common sense that you are a descendant since none of us were obviously alive 140 years ago. Then again, common sense keeps becoming more and more uncommon these days...

As far as the other statement, it's in reference to me and to all the other people that had to suffer through Castro's dictatorship to only have ass-wipes such as yourself glorifying that nut job, and I'm sure that would add up to a fairly large group of people. Live in Cuba or just visit it for a while, and I'm sure your opinion would be much different.

[info]rayne_vandunem

September 4 2005, 06:37:59 UTC 6 years ago

to only have ass-wipes such as yourself glorifying that nut job, and I'm sure that would add up to a fairly large group of people.

Oh, did it seem like I was *glorifying* him?

I, in this post, was only noting the social programs which came *ONLY* as a result of the Castro regime. Healthcare (or at least a semblance of it), construction, universalized education, the works.

However, if you had read the script a bit further/deeper, you may note that I mentioned why, despite its well-projected exterior image (on an international scale), Cuba would have all reason to fall into internal disrepair and repression. And I quote:

well, while we still have Big Baby Bush to worry about, Castro has not shown enough flexibility to necessary change, which shows in the growing stagnation of the Cuban government (despite what even *he* may say).

Cuba, in a way, has become alot like a military fortress in Vietnam (I think that was featured in Apocalypse Now): Cuba may have established a system of defense against the U.S. forays into the region, but the war over the domination of this same area is now being won (gradually) by the New Left of the likes of Hugo Chavez and Lula da Silva. Thus, the catch lies in this: Cuba isn't moving forward along with the rest of Latin America, as if its caught in a time warp of the likes of the Soviet Bloc prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This is why I fear for the Cuban people. If Castro is to stay in power, then, to the benefit of the people of Cuba, he has to make some desperate changes in order for his country to emerge into the world market and to keep Cuba from going downhill (socially speaking). If Castro and the CPC is to lose power (thus satisfying Miami and Washington), then, for the Cuban people and the disenfranchised among them who may result out of such a possibly-turbulent shift in the governance of the country, let the changes be gradual.

Otherwise, I'm certain, Cuba will turn into an American Belarus.


Now probably to you, this may sound like "ass-wiping", as you probably may designate it (and, in a sense, you already have), but then again, I wouldn't expect those who use profanity as an assault weapon to know pragmatism when they see it.

When any state assumes the stance which Cuba first took back in 1959, executions and a police state are going to follow, since such is seemingly unavoidable, especially within the realms of political and economic interests concerning the "ancien regime". Freedom of the press, assembly, arms-bearing, all of those are going to be annulled. Why? Because of the fact that they will be perceived as anti-patriotic, anti-Cuban, anti-(put ideology right here).

So there, I have just reiterated my notation on the stagnation of Cuba, from the inside, as a result of its position in the world. Oh, but I guess that I AM "glorifying that nut job" by simply stating 1) the changes which occured immediately following the 1959 accession of the Castrolistas, 2) what usually happens to states like Cuba, 3) the very complex crash course in governance which has been given to the Third World (which, basically, now includes Louisiana) by Cuba, and 4) what I hope for the future of the people of Cuba.

"Ass-wiping", indeed.

[info]heavenablaze

September 6 2005, 03:14:33 UTC 6 years ago

Considering that I know a lot of people who've came here on rafts to Cuba (and in some cases died trying), my over-reactiveness gave in. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that he's still a nut job and Cuba needs to obviously undergo some serious radical changes to get some semblance of normality. Ahhh, alcohol and computers don't mix...

[info]rayne_vandunem

September 6 2005, 04:39:49 UTC 6 years ago

Ahhh, alcohol and computers don't mix...

Indeed, they don't, lol...

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that he's still a nut job and Cuba needs to obviously undergo some serious radical changes to get some semblance of normality.

I wonder if that would include turning down the volume of patriotism in order to welcome those damned IMF austerity measures...I pity those countries which fell prey to them within the last 30 years. I think that the effects felt by those countries are the reasons why the New Left has gained such political notoriety in this region.

[info]heavenablaze

September 8 2005, 18:35:12 UTC 6 years ago

Could be. I think it also had to do with the fact that almost every nation that changed to a socialist style government had no real industrial strength at the time and rushed into it way too fast, which in a way defeats the purpose in the first place. History has proven that not going through Marx's model and rushing ill-prepared ends doing more harm than good, which is why Lenin had to enact some capitalist ideas during the end of his rule, at least in my opinion. Then again, I'm not a big socialist buff, so I could be wrong.

[info]rayne_vandunem

September 8 2005, 20:54:32 UTC 6 years ago

I can see where you're coming from:

Too fast = short term pleasure now = long term pain tomorrow

Kinda like drugs, don't you think?

The main problem with these countries is that they're still stuck in colonial-era conditions and mindsets. They seek as full, as fast, and as wealth-immediate an exploitation of their resources as possible (remember 1970's Brazil?), in the exact same manner as those colonials from Spain and Portugal who set about to run the silver mines of Mexico and Bolivia into the ground (with both Amerindian and African slaves, unsurprisingly).

Enter the IMF/World Bank wrecking crew. They propose the long road to Vegas rather than the short road to NYC. South America agrees and joins the bandwagon. Then, over time they see just how ill-prepared they actually are to go the long road. Then the people get pissed and show just exactly how sick they are of the long road, and, as it happens to usually go, the populists come back to power on a platform of 1) a middle finger to the IMF/WB, 2) nationalization of natural resources, and 3) either an agrarian, manufacturing, or technological revolution that will, at least for the time being, be beneifical to the ever-patriotic homeland. Rich folks be damned.

Now, one sees the point with the IMF/WB, and one can also see the point with the popular reaction. So...where's the compromise?

I mean, like you said, Lenin decided to carry out a compromise between Bolshevism and capitalism towards the end of his rule. Basically, he saw that moving to the extreme (right or left) isn't ever the best option, and that the workers of the world benefit best when there is a compromise that is worked out between the social and the capital, thus reaping the benefits (and, maybe to a lesser degree, the accompanying detriments) of both.

'Tis goes for all schools of economics, including the "neo-liberal" IMF/WB, a Northern Hemisphere organization(s) that one wouldn't actually expect to make a prudent and judicial decision concerning the economics of a Southern Hemisphere country, anyway.

[info]sciucaro

September 4 2005, 06:28:03 UTC 6 years ago

Cuba used to want to join the American Union.

[info]rayne_vandunem

September 4 2005, 06:44:45 UTC 6 years ago

Yes, sometime prior to 1959.

But then again, that was probably the economic elite fantasizing again. Such is, and has been, endemic to this particular social class throughout most of Latin America, anyway.

[info]sciucaro

September 4 2005, 06:59:27 UTC 6 years ago

I read it that that's what the RWB colors and the star on their flag, and the fact that they rebelled a greater nation, that they would, but then it changed over.

[info]rayne_vandunem

September 4 2005, 07:18:46 UTC 6 years ago

Funny that you should mention the RWB tradition. I also read that it was either Cuba or Puerto Rico that inverted their colors in order to differentiate from the other one, based upon either political or ideological differences.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…