Stay in one of the five star hotels, and Cuba is a fabulous place for a holiday. Sit down by that swimming pool and bask in the Caribbean sunshine, light up a cigar from beyond the wilder shores of Freudian symbolism and knock back cocktails blended from the finest rum on earth. And if it’s nightlife you want, there’s hot jazz and salsa clubs that stay open until four am. That’s on the weeknights. Convertible pesos only, of course.
But for most ordinary Cubans, life is pretty damn grim. I saw that for myself two years ago, when I spent four weeks in an ordinary home in Havana while studying Spanish. Even such basic foodstuffs as rice are rationed. Water supplies are sporadic, and power cuts regular occurrences. The housing stock is badly run down. Many everyday items are simply unobtainable.
Yes, of course the US blockade and the economic effects of the collapse of the USSR are part - although by no means all - of the explanation. But there is no getting away from the conclusion that Cuban society is deeply polarised.
Beyond a layer of older people who lived through the revolution in the late fifties, there are few strong supporters of the government. The younger a person is - and the darker the colour of their skin - the more likely they are to be hostile. Many of those at the sharp end of the multiple hardships would rather be living in Miami, and don’t think twice about saying that to a foreign journalist.
The thing is, Cuba is the last remaining country with even a semi-credible claim to be somehow ‘socialist’. Few nowadays regard China as anything other than an extended neoliberal sweatshop with the chutzpah still to fly the red flag, or see North Korea as more than a famine-ridden hellhole suffering under a particularly ghastly hereditary quasi-monarchy.
Accordingly, many lefties in the developed world maintain a soft spot for the homeland of Fidel Castro. The Cuban system wasn’t imposed by the Red Army, they point out; it emerged instead from a genuine revolutionary process that grew over from nationalism to what it is today. And Che did try to export revolution rather than build socialism in one country. Welcome to Sunshine Stalinism.
But nevertheless, socialists have a duty not to duck some elementary truths. Cuba is a one party state. There are no independent trade unions, and the government maintains the strictest imaginable censorship over the media.
There are no gulags as such, but plenty of political prisoners. Party cadre are privileged, if to an extent limited in comparison to other historical examples. In plain English, Cuba is a dictatorship. A dictatorship lite, perhaps, but a dictatorship nevertheless.
Of course there are counter-arguments aplenty. Important as democracy is, it is not the sole criteria on which to judge a country. Turkey holds regular elections, but still brutally represses the Kurdish population. In multi-party India – the self-styled ‘largest democracy in the world’ - hundreds of millions starve.
Cuba, on the other hand, provides universal education and the highest standards of health care in the third world. It’s the only poor country I have ever seen that isn’t scarred by shanty towns. Even those locals that grumble most don’t dispute that.
Havana might not by Heaven, but it sure ain’t Haiti either. It’s just that - not unreasonably – the population wants a system that provides them with toilet paper. Oh, and some fresh fish once in a while would be good.
Many are openly envious of a layer in Cuban society that certainly isn’t hard up. Entry to Havana’s premier salsa spot costs more than a month’s white collar wages. Yet most of the several hundred strong crowd are young Cubans.
Some of them simply have jobs – formal or informal - in the tourist sector. Some of the women are not prostitutes, you understand; they just put out for foreign men who can show a girl a good time. Even bellboys can earn more than university professors, so long as they pick up tips en convertibles. And to get to be a bellboy - so I was told by a qualified architect currently working as a cinema usher - you need ‘connections‘.
But most of the obviously well-off benefit from remittances from abroad. Havana is not immune from globalisation. Starbucks and McDonalds are unable to set up shop, thanks to the US embargo. But Benetton and some Spanish hotel chains are already running local operations.
Perhaps the clearest reason for socialists not to go starry-eyed over the place is the massive social weight of the Cuban armed forces, so typical for Latin America. That was probably the real significance of the decision of Fidel Castro (pictured) to hand over de facto power to kid brother Raul in 2006, confirmed by his resignation today. Power lies with the guys that dress up in olive green.
For the democratic left, then, the conclusions are clear. We should oppose the US blockade on basic democratic grounds. Ironically from Washington’s viewpoint, it could actually be holding back the development of an indigenous Cuban democratic opposition.
But at the same time, we need to stress that a democratic opening is essential if Cuba is to avoid the build up of discontent on the scale of 1980s Eastern Europe, and the eventual introduction of a particularly savage brand of neoliberal capitalism.
I’d hate to go back in a few years and find that heart-stoppingly beautiful Old Havana had reverted to its former role as one big extended casino-cum-whorehouse theme park for gringos.
This is a slightly edited version of a piece that originally appeared on this blog in September 2006.
Posted at 12:39, 19 February 2008
Comments (21)
This was and is a good article. Similar sentiments are on display from The Guardian's John Harris at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_harris/2008/02/a_question_of_resignation.html
the Castro families hold on rule in Cuba is slipping away, slowly
once Fidel Castro is gone Raul's power will diminish and even the army won't be able to maintain the dictatorship** in Cuba
I will bet that soon after the whole system collapses then the gangsters from Miami fly across to take up residence
it's very close the demise of Cuban socialism
** if you don't think it is a dictatorship then answer this question honestly, who has ultimate power in Cuba?
And, morality, given your prognosis, where do you stand? Dictatorial socialism versus US gangsters?
A difficult choice, best stick with simple homilies re secularism, I think.
lobby ludd,
not having your privileged education, boring rhetoric or incapacity with logic, I actually enjoyed Cuba, I thought it was a great improvement on the Latin American countries I saw or was about to visit
I have a great sympathy for the Cuban people, but none for the leadership, nevertheless I can't help feeling that the lives of ordinary Cubans will be much worse when the Miami gangsters return
I am frequently surprised by University educated pillocks (such as Lobby Ludd) who engage in politics but can't exercise a bit of foresight and see that things will change, and Cuba will dramatically change once Fidel and Raul go, whatever we think here
Best not to assume too much, eh, morality?
Promise to be entirely crass.
Hope Cuba doesn't change too much. The women ("not prostitutes") are cheap, plentiful and remarkably healthy (good hospitals don't you know). Low price cocaine is available through connections thanks to the FARC. Cuba is an excellent place to play the "gringo" for very few dollars. You are right there is little gambling though, perhaps Raul will allow casinos in the free trade zones - strictly for us foreign tourists and the Party elite, like the good hospitals.
And here is an article that also agrees with you, but is unlikely to be found in the Guardian.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/tradoc/usaic/mipb/1999-3/williams.htm
You just have to look at who's taking over from Castro - his brother - to see how democratic Cuba is. Keeping it in the family. Heh, nice one.
It'll be interesting to read the Left blogs in the next couple of days as you can expect Castro's departure might raise the question of Cuba again. The justification for the Dictatorship of Cuba and the ridiculous round-about ways of putting Marxist spin on a State-Capitalist system is sure to be entertaining as well as vomit-worthy.
Dictatorial socialism (or 'state-capitalism' in 'Cliff-ese for school-leavers') versus American gangsters ? That's a hard one, particularly in the context of South and Central America. That was sarcasm.
"You just have to look at who's taking over from Castro - his brother - to see how democratic Cuba is."
That's the worst argument against that I've heard so far. Raúl was the number two in command during the revolution and has remained there since.
Ah, the eterntal liberal dilema..."one the one hand...on the other..it's all so, SO difficult in "blogland"....quick babe, my head aches."
But maybe one day we'll have a truly pure democratic socialist revolution where the working class good guys (and ladies) all wear white coats and look like Robert Redford and Jane Fonda c. 1975. Meanwhile,the bad guys (capitalist money bags) all have greasy hair and bad teeth and dress in black. Result? A kind of MGM Athenian city state headed up by Polly Toynbee.
Do you ever get the feeling that the "working class" (and their rural friends) have REALLY let US down...throughout history?
SO crude and and SO messy in everything they attempt. Nevermind, A GOOD dose of invigorating American KAPITAL will soon sort 'em all out.
AND...it's already on the launch pad in Miami.
* The only REAL humour in this yesterday was hearing David Miliband's (Joe 90) contorted attempts to deny his father's convictions.
Yes, I noticed Miliband's nauseating wriggling too.
While Cuba may be deeply problematic, what about the annuncement due today by tax-dodger, James Purnell (Minister for Work and Pensions), that the unemployed are to be made to toil for their dole? Will there be such a distance between a Cuban command economy and one soon to be grounded on unfree labour?
In the Daily Telegraph (this morning's Web site), is a story that the Minister is about to introduce measures to make those claiming for more than 12 months engage in 'work related' activity. Will take effect next year.
This will mean 'training' (worthless babble), or, more commonly, carrying out jobs for employers, and the so-called 'voluntary sector'. For the princely sum of the Dole plus a small allowance. No employment rights. Carrying out the stuff that used to be done by the those convicted by the Courts. A godsend for all the 'contactors'on the existing New Deal enteprirses, already living high-off-the-hog from public subsidy, and who will organise these modern chain-gangs.
From US experience the latter comparison is not exaggerated. The Australian case of work-for-dole at least gives a bit of real extra dosh, and protection. But, hey I don't know much about those systems. All I know is that here this will cause lots of misery, waste tonnes of money, benefit the wealthy, undermine public services and make all the rest of the sour gobshite that comes out of Brown's Cabinet look like the sweetest bon-bons.
It is in fact, a scheme to make unfree labour the lynch-pin of the 'welfare' state. Or in plainer language, slavery.
But I suppose we still still be able to find bog-rolls in the supermarkets - probably be stacking them.
am frequently surprised by University educated pillocks (such as Lobby Ludd)
Does anyone else find Modernity's inverted snobbery/anti-intellectualism ball-achingly tedious? You've had decades to get over failing your 11-plus - using "University-educated" as an ad hominem is the mark of a no-mark.
the unemployed are to be made to toil for their dole
I think the Government should make the unemployed work - for real wages with full employment rights, and paid the minimum wage as compensation for any period where the state can't find them work. Scrap dole - give everyone a job.
"You just have to look at who's taking over from Castro - his brother - to see how democratic Cuba is."
That's the worst argument against that I've heard so far. Raúl was the number two in command during the revolution and has remained there since.
No, that just proves me point even further. Don't you find it a little odd that two brothers can maintain the top two positions of the Cuban state for so long?
"Does anyone else find Modernity's inverted snobbery/anti-intellectualism ball-achingly tedious?"
Yes, I do, but I don't care.
Morality reminds me of the twerp on the board of school governors of which I was a member who constantly said 'but I'm only concerned about what's best for the children' as if nobody else had the same concerns.
To corect a point of fact, there is no US "blockade" of Cuba. There is a partial American embargo, but no "blockade".
Attested to by the fact of the multiple non-stop daily flights between Miami and Havana, and the millions of dollars of products that US companies sell to Cuba each year.
To correct a point of fact, there is no US "blockade" of Cuba. There is a partial American embargo, but no "blockade".
Attested to by the fact of the multiple non-stop daily flights between Miami and Havana, and the millions of dollars of products that US companies sell to Cuba each year.
"Don't you find it a little odd that two brothers can maintain the top two positions of the Cuban state for so long?"
No. The top brass all come from the group of people that led the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship and Fidel and Raúl were the top two in the revolution.
The democracy problem is a separate thing, and more troubling, but this is not nepotism.
"President D" is rightwing yank lunatic who hangs around "comment is free" dispencing his worthless crap - he is scum and a headcase.
He thinks that Yankland's economic embargo against Cuba is defencable on the grounds that the island isn't actually surrounded by US battleships shooting any cargo ships or airliners from entering Cuba. What a prick.
Whatever the verminous good-for-nothing yanky imperialist lickspittle says, the devestating social and economic impact of the embargo are well known. See for example:
http://www.alternatives.ca/article876.html
Give up President D - this isn't little green footballs. You won't get away with justifing crimes against humanity here you thick fucking nutcase.
Actually, the prospects for Cuba might be good. Would you rather live in today's Bohemia or under the dictatorship of pre-1989? It's a no brainer, really.
But this is Cuba 2008 we're talking about, not late 80's central Europe. There is always the chance that Cuba might go the way of some of the Soviet successor states and suffer greater poverty and declining life expectancy as a result of change. I don't think Cuba's proximity to the US and to it's crazy Miami-residing exiles will be an advantage in the years to come.