|
I imagine there were British imperialists and royalists, and even landed gentry in the U.S., or who fled to Canada or back to England, who dreamt of reconquering America for decades, even centuries, after the American Revolution. Continued hostilities on the sea and the War of 1812 would seem to say so. This country was founded by bloody revolution. Would that have justified the British re-taking it, after the great majority of Americans rejected British rule in no uncertain terms?
That conflict was both political and economic (as the "Boston Tea Party" illustrates). The grievances were lack of representation in parliament when taxes and other polices were imposed, and the injustice of the local imperial administrators, and also exploitation of the colonies to enrich the British Empire and its global corporate predators.
How is all this different from Cuba? Not much. The biggest difference is that the Cuban revolutionaries weighed political freedom as of less value than economic emancipation from truly dreadful exploitation. They did not, and do not, define freedom the same way the U.S. does. Is someone truly free if he is dirt poor, has no hope of improvement for himself or his family, has no chance at education, and can be beaten and even killed by rich landowners or corrupt businessmen, and has no redress in government? It is certainly a reasonable position to say that, until that poor man or woman has a decent life--useful employment in non-exploitative conditions, educational opportunities, and food on the table--political freedom is fairly worthless. In any case, the vast majority of Cubans had neither political freedom nor economic well-being under the dictator Batista--or any of his ilk, who were little better than gangsters. The Cuban revolutionaries chose economic well-being for the masses of Cubans, and saw political freedom, as it was exercised in the U.S.--the freedom of the rich to accumulate wealth and to impose their views on others by means of wealth--as a threat to Cubans' economic well-being. They curtailed political freedom--freedom of speech, freedom to organize political parties against the government--because they saw and see it as a threat to the economic revolution. And the feeling of threat has been reinforced time and again, by the hostile intentions of the U.S., and by the expatriate Cuban community in Florida which has worked with the CIA to violently overthrow the Cuban revolution.
In the U.S., the country had what seemed at one time to be endless land and resources to accommodate the poor and give them hope, and, in many cases, the realization of either riches or a decent life. This vast wealth of land and resources continually allayed the conflict between rich and poor in the U.S. Not so in Cuba--a limited land base, with limited resources. How were/are those limited resources to be distributed? The Cuban revolutionary philosophy was/is that limited resources must be distributed evenly, to benefit everyone, and to insure a decent life for all citizens. That was/is the communist ideal, and it has worked better in Cuba than anywhere else on earth. It is a well-established and stable country, where all citizens DO have a decent life, and educational opportunities, and participate in government (though not with freedom to change the government).
It has all worked so well that Cuba gives aid to other countries--for instance, Cuba supplies doctors for Venezuela's new medical centers for the poor (and provides a medical education to Venezuelans, so that Venezuela can one day supply its own doctors). In the U.S., a medical education is above all a financial proposition. Huge amounts of money are involved, per doctor, and most doctors expect to become rich. In Cuba, doctors make the same salary as everyone else. There is no expectation of becoming rich. Therefore, in Cuba--and, by extension, in the countries that Cuba aids--medical care is a compassionate gift to those who are sick, not an opportunity to exploit the sick. Medical care in the U.S. has become extremely distorted by capitalism. In Cuba, medical care is closer to the origins of medicine as a healing art.
The Chinese government was also established by bloody revolution. So was the French government. So was Vietnam (an on-going 5,000 year revolution against the domination of any other state--which the U.S. very unwisely got involved in trying to violently put down). Many states have bloody histories, including our own. Does this justify U.S. intervention?
Cuba annoys U.S. capitalists and the super-rich, because it sets such a good example, in many ways, for what governments should really be doing, and how resources and wealth should be distributed. Venezuela has committed the same crime, and what is more, has committed the crime of re-distributing wealth peacefully and democratically, with full political freedom. You wonder why the Bushites hate Venezuela? This is why. It's a bad example to the poor--that they can elect one of their own as president, and peacefully pursue improving their lot, while harming no one. The Venezuelan Constitution protects private property, and that guarantee has been respected and enforced by the Chavez government. The Bushites have absolutely no excuse for opposing or interfering with Venezuela's government, or trying to overthrow it. With Cuba, they have they excuse that it was founded, more than four decades ago, by a violent revolution, which evicted the rich landowners and confiscated the land, shut down the very exploitative and fascist sector of the economy, and toppled the Batista dictatorship, which could not have been gotten rid of any other way--Cuba was not a democracy.
Cuba has the further threat of the landowners and businessmen (Batista's spawn) who were thrown out of Cuba, and fled to Florida's shores, where they have never stopped agitating for violent overthrow of Castro and Cuba's communist government, and have become a rightwing political cabal within the U.S., allied with fascist forces throughout Latin America. (And there are many who believe that the Cubans involved with the CIA participated in the JFK assassination, in revenge for JFK stopping the CIA/Cuban expatriate invasion of Cuba, in the early months of JFK's presidency.) This is an overly broad characterization of the Cuban American community--especially given its longevity here, and the development of a new generation--but it is, indeed, the why and the wherefore of that community's origins--anti-Castro conspirators, out to dominate and exploit other Cubans as they were able to, in the "glory days" of the rightwing dictatorship.
One hopes for a peaceful and reasonable accommodation, by the U.S., toward this stable and well-established government. Many predicted Castro's fall when the Soviet Union collapsed. It did not happen. Cuba rebounded, showing flexibility and resourcefulness. (It used to get considerable aid from the Soviets). Cuba is not a particularly repressive government. Most of its citizens are content and support their government, and revere Castro. Cuba has no Guantanamo Bays, no Abu Ghraibs, no gulags, and has had no bloody purges or "red brigade" fanaticism. Its form of communism has a distinctly Cuban flavor. The Bush Junta's actions have been far, far worse than anything Cuba ever did--widespread torture, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq, international lawlessness. Cuba is a lamb, compared to the Bush Junta.
And this writer, Wayne S. Smith, is absolutely correct that U.S. policy toward Cuba has been a complete failure, with virtually no support in the rest of the world. All the fanaticism is on OUR side now. And the Bush Junta policy is especially wrong and dangerous, and ill intended, for it seeks the overthrow not just of Cuba's government, but of democratic governments and leftist (majorityist) movements throughout Latin America. And what you create, when you destroy democracy--in Venezuela, in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Argentina, in Chile, in Brazil, in Nicaragua (all of which now have, or are about to elect*, good leftist governments) is bloody revolution against oppression, such as occurred in Cuba in the late 1950s.
-----
*(Leftist candidates are way ahead in the polls in Ecuador and Nicaragua. The others have all elected leftist (majorityist) governments over the last few years. The Bush Cartel is purchasing a huge property in Paraguay--one of the weaker South American governments--from which they may intend to launch a private war against Latin American democracy, to reclaim Latin America for fascist dictatorship and the Corporate Rulers, after they are done with us. Invading and installing a dictator in Cuba could be an important part of that plan. They tried a violent overthrow (and a number of other tactics) in Venezuela, and failed. But the new plan could include Columbia-based U.S. drug war/paramilitary forces ($600,000 in U.S. military aid to Columbia this year alone) on the move in Paraguay (where U.S. tax dollars have built a high level military airport), aimed first of all at Bolivia (where socialist Evo Morales--the first indigenous president of Bolivia--was recently elected, and where there has been a huge citizen revolt against U.S.-based global corporate predators, such as Bechtel.) The Andes region is rich in water, oil, gas, minerals and other exploitable resources, and the Bushites for sure don't want those resources to benefit the poor. Their 200,000 acre land purchase in Paraguay is the talk of Latin America, and is a cause of great concern to many good people. It is no doubt why Morales has put off plans to nationalize Bolivia's gas reserves--a campaign promise he may not be able to keep, with the Bush Junta marshaling forces against him.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
