MisterBouncyBounce
Well-Known Member
Fidel Castro: a perspective.
by MisterBouncyBounce
up to 1959 Cuba was heavily dependent on just one crop, sugar as well as a single "trade partner", in other words it was limited to one market to sell their goods, namely sugar.
In addition , I'm sure it surprises no one, many American companies had very large investments in Cuba, roughly 850 million dollars in 1959.
much of that investment began arriving when Cuba gained it's "freedom" from a weakened Spain in the late 1880s and it fell right into the American hegemony, both political and corporate.
a series of strongman "leaders" followed who were happy supplicants to their US masters while they played big shot at home. and so the country was basically sold to US corporate interest, while at the same time the USA military maintained a marine force on the island.
an island dependant on one crop and basically one buyer, which meant it's economic well being was tied precariously to the price of sugar, which the US ostensibly controlled through other countries and client states it controlled like the Dominican Republic, Peru and Puerto Rico, and so could and often did set quotas on production.
with corrupt dictators selling the land and rights to means of production out from under the people and pocketing the cash, the Cuban workers and peasants were improvised and broken by repression if offering resistance to the status quo.
there is no controversy whatsoever about how venial and avariciously corrupt Batista was.
so the Cuban people were in fact in a bad way and for a long time. they were not reaping any benefits from having won their freedom from Spain.
their land was not really theirs, it belonged to the American sugar companies. ownership of hotel and casinos weren't own by Cuban businessmen. not even own by Cuban gangsters but rather American gangsters. their politics were meddled with by the USA and backed by the presence and later the specter of military force.
ostensibly they were the opposite of free and were openly destitute. they suffered high unemployment and high under employment, while the resources, like sugar, flowed out to US companies, while the vacation and gambling dollars flowed out to organized crime and hotel chains like Hilton.
I guess Cubans were smart and adept enough to work in these hotels and casinos but were too stupid to know how to build one themselves, they needed Hilton to show them how.
they knew how to grow, harvest and process sugar, but were too stupid to know how to incorporate. no Cuban ever had the knowledge to form a corporation and export sugar, they needed an American to do it for them.
and they were so happy to toil their own native land and be paid shit wages from a foreigner for doing it, while the foreigner reaped profits of their work and land.
this was the Cuban environment and this was life as America's "trading partner".
none of this is controversial.
Who made Castro?
Fidel Castro was a 32 year old practicing lawyer from a rich family. privilege was his. he already had the trappings and security of a comfy life by the time he became politically activated.
it's easy to understand with such conditions, with the people getting the shaft for so long that someone would rise, win the hearts and minds of the people and change things.
while he seized power, it was done with the benefit of the people's will behind him. even Batista knew he couldn't win.
crowds cheered as he passed through towns on his way to Havana after Batista fled. this was no silent coup staged in the middle of the night.
in 1959 Castro did not carry himself a socialist and did not nationalize industry wholesale. it was America's hegemony and Cuba's deep dependency on sugar that led to Cuba's state capitalism and a move toward the USSR.
America demanded compensation for land seized in the land reform of 1959 but refused financial aid.......basically a mortgage.
in 1960, Cuba made a deal to trade sugar for oil with Russia, but the oil companies like Texaco and Shell and others refused to process it in their Cuban refineries. So Castro seized the oil refineries.
in turn Eisenhower halted all sugar imports, so Castro nationalized all American property and that brought a total embargo by the US.
so right off the bat Cuba was isolated from most of the world markets.
considering the point of overthrowing a sordid regime was for the purpose of reform and a fair shake for the people, his refusal to carry on with business as usual.........just another corrupt dictator lining his pockets with American money and repressing his people to do so....... is quite understandable and actually admirable.
it was all there for the taking. he was welcomed by America. he was even praised in US political circles during his stay in American after ascending to power.
the easiest thing to do was play ball and he would be set for life, rich, living a lavish life and firmly entrenched in power with US backing and blessing.
for those who may be confused by the mention of Cuba being capitalistic, note that nationalizing industry is not socialism nor is it communism.
when companies and industries are nationalized the only thing that changes is who is the boss. where before it was fred who owned the factory and you worked for him, now it is the state that owns the factory and you work for it. merely the owners change.
that is called "state capitalism".
in socialism (there is many flavors), even in communism, but socialism especially, you have collectives that are ostensibly companies, the only differences is it is owned by the workers and not an hierarchy.
for an actual example see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizmendi_Bakery
the means of production are owned by everyone and hence by the workers/owners of a particular collective, for example everyone owns the water supply, so if you for example, want to start a soft drink collective, you don't have to pay a private person for water or electricity.
the water and power plant would be owned by the community. the taxes generated by the sale and profit of the soda would pay for the disproportionate use of those utilities by the soft drink collective.
there are brands of socialism that seek to do away with money and business. I personally don't think that is the socialism of the future.
one day money will become obsolete, but that has to be arrived at organically IMO, it can't be ushered in. but i digress.
with his back to the wall, there was not much choice, either cave in to US corporate and political interest, there by betraying the revolution and his people or turn to state capitalism.
to his credit he chose not to sell out but to try and make it anyway even though the road became much harder.
he tried several things, like diversifying agricultural, focusing on rice, beans and corn, so they wouldn't be so dependant on one crop, though it didn't pan out as hoped.
62 and 63 were bad years for their sugar crop as railways and mills broke down. the embargo was making it very difficult to acquire things such as parts and material that normally would have been routine had they be able to trade with other nations. and so Cuba fell into debt.
by this time, already multiple terror campaigns were underway seeking to kill or depose him. again this is not controversial.
it is true he banned political parties and suppressed dissent. one has to consider it in the light of assassination attempts, attempted infiltration and destabilization by a foreign power.
and yet in '65 he opened the fishing port of Camarioca so foreign boats could come get and take away anyone who wanted to leave. roughly 7,500 people left. later that December an air lift allowed more people to leave for the US. and the US claimed to stop it's campaigns against him (which were resumed by 69 courtesy of Nixon).
during this time of difficulty though, trying to diversify the economy, keep machinery running and fending off attacks, worker's conditioned improved sharply. again not controversial.
in the 80s, his intervention in Africa and defense of Angola, sending in 25,000 combat troops and tanks, defeating South African aggression helped bring about regime change in South Africa that led to Nelson Mandala's freeing and the end of apartheid.
Castro did not install and prop up the murderous, brutal Pinochett regime.
nor Marcos, Pol Pot, the Shah of Iran............etcetera nth times.
or rape the resources of every latin american country, tin from Bolivia, copper from Chile, wood from Paraguay, oil from Venezuela, while keeping tyrants in power so local resistance could be crushed and kept suppressed.
he didn't stage coups or drop naplam on children in vietnam or kill freedom fighters in Nicaragua. sell cocaine on American streets to buy weapons, or kill god knows how many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions Iraqi women, children and elderly, not to mention men.
he didn't assassinate heads of states or turn countries like Guatemala into banana republics.
these are just a SMALL sample of things other leaders have done.......wink.
just about every US president has killed more innocent people than Castro could even dream of.
All the murderous, tyrannical dictators many lump Castro in with were direct products of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
as we ALL know, from all sides and angles, Castro never played on that team, he was never part of those dictators.
Name a dictator that you think Castro by deeds should be lumped in with, and chances are high you'll find the US behind them.
he was no angel and he didn't always make the best or right choices, but he never sold himself to become the murderous monster the US was hoping he'd be.
he was never Kissinger or Cheney.
the man had integrity and was sincere. his policies were the least oppressive of any US administration.
I invite everyone to fact check all claims and assertions made in this article.
by MisterBouncyBounce
up to 1959 Cuba was heavily dependent on just one crop, sugar as well as a single "trade partner", in other words it was limited to one market to sell their goods, namely sugar.
In addition , I'm sure it surprises no one, many American companies had very large investments in Cuba, roughly 850 million dollars in 1959.
much of that investment began arriving when Cuba gained it's "freedom" from a weakened Spain in the late 1880s and it fell right into the American hegemony, both political and corporate.
a series of strongman "leaders" followed who were happy supplicants to their US masters while they played big shot at home. and so the country was basically sold to US corporate interest, while at the same time the USA military maintained a marine force on the island.
an island dependant on one crop and basically one buyer, which meant it's economic well being was tied precariously to the price of sugar, which the US ostensibly controlled through other countries and client states it controlled like the Dominican Republic, Peru and Puerto Rico, and so could and often did set quotas on production.
with corrupt dictators selling the land and rights to means of production out from under the people and pocketing the cash, the Cuban workers and peasants were improvised and broken by repression if offering resistance to the status quo.
there is no controversy whatsoever about how venial and avariciously corrupt Batista was.
so the Cuban people were in fact in a bad way and for a long time. they were not reaping any benefits from having won their freedom from Spain.
their land was not really theirs, it belonged to the American sugar companies. ownership of hotel and casinos weren't own by Cuban businessmen. not even own by Cuban gangsters but rather American gangsters. their politics were meddled with by the USA and backed by the presence and later the specter of military force.
ostensibly they were the opposite of free and were openly destitute. they suffered high unemployment and high under employment, while the resources, like sugar, flowed out to US companies, while the vacation and gambling dollars flowed out to organized crime and hotel chains like Hilton.
I guess Cubans were smart and adept enough to work in these hotels and casinos but were too stupid to know how to build one themselves, they needed Hilton to show them how.
they knew how to grow, harvest and process sugar, but were too stupid to know how to incorporate. no Cuban ever had the knowledge to form a corporation and export sugar, they needed an American to do it for them.
and they were so happy to toil their own native land and be paid shit wages from a foreigner for doing it, while the foreigner reaped profits of their work and land.
this was the Cuban environment and this was life as America's "trading partner".
none of this is controversial.
Who made Castro?
Fidel Castro was a 32 year old practicing lawyer from a rich family. privilege was his. he already had the trappings and security of a comfy life by the time he became politically activated.
it's easy to understand with such conditions, with the people getting the shaft for so long that someone would rise, win the hearts and minds of the people and change things.
while he seized power, it was done with the benefit of the people's will behind him. even Batista knew he couldn't win.
crowds cheered as he passed through towns on his way to Havana after Batista fled. this was no silent coup staged in the middle of the night.
in 1959 Castro did not carry himself a socialist and did not nationalize industry wholesale. it was America's hegemony and Cuba's deep dependency on sugar that led to Cuba's state capitalism and a move toward the USSR.
America demanded compensation for land seized in the land reform of 1959 but refused financial aid.......basically a mortgage.
in 1960, Cuba made a deal to trade sugar for oil with Russia, but the oil companies like Texaco and Shell and others refused to process it in their Cuban refineries. So Castro seized the oil refineries.
in turn Eisenhower halted all sugar imports, so Castro nationalized all American property and that brought a total embargo by the US.
so right off the bat Cuba was isolated from most of the world markets.
considering the point of overthrowing a sordid regime was for the purpose of reform and a fair shake for the people, his refusal to carry on with business as usual.........just another corrupt dictator lining his pockets with American money and repressing his people to do so....... is quite understandable and actually admirable.
it was all there for the taking. he was welcomed by America. he was even praised in US political circles during his stay in American after ascending to power.
the easiest thing to do was play ball and he would be set for life, rich, living a lavish life and firmly entrenched in power with US backing and blessing.
for those who may be confused by the mention of Cuba being capitalistic, note that nationalizing industry is not socialism nor is it communism.
when companies and industries are nationalized the only thing that changes is who is the boss. where before it was fred who owned the factory and you worked for him, now it is the state that owns the factory and you work for it. merely the owners change.
that is called "state capitalism".
in socialism (there is many flavors), even in communism, but socialism especially, you have collectives that are ostensibly companies, the only differences is it is owned by the workers and not an hierarchy.
for an actual example see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizmendi_Bakery
the means of production are owned by everyone and hence by the workers/owners of a particular collective, for example everyone owns the water supply, so if you for example, want to start a soft drink collective, you don't have to pay a private person for water or electricity.
the water and power plant would be owned by the community. the taxes generated by the sale and profit of the soda would pay for the disproportionate use of those utilities by the soft drink collective.
there are brands of socialism that seek to do away with money and business. I personally don't think that is the socialism of the future.
one day money will become obsolete, but that has to be arrived at organically IMO, it can't be ushered in. but i digress.
with his back to the wall, there was not much choice, either cave in to US corporate and political interest, there by betraying the revolution and his people or turn to state capitalism.
to his credit he chose not to sell out but to try and make it anyway even though the road became much harder.
he tried several things, like diversifying agricultural, focusing on rice, beans and corn, so they wouldn't be so dependant on one crop, though it didn't pan out as hoped.
62 and 63 were bad years for their sugar crop as railways and mills broke down. the embargo was making it very difficult to acquire things such as parts and material that normally would have been routine had they be able to trade with other nations. and so Cuba fell into debt.
by this time, already multiple terror campaigns were underway seeking to kill or depose him. again this is not controversial.
it is true he banned political parties and suppressed dissent. one has to consider it in the light of assassination attempts, attempted infiltration and destabilization by a foreign power.
and yet in '65 he opened the fishing port of Camarioca so foreign boats could come get and take away anyone who wanted to leave. roughly 7,500 people left. later that December an air lift allowed more people to leave for the US. and the US claimed to stop it's campaigns against him (which were resumed by 69 courtesy of Nixon).
during this time of difficulty though, trying to diversify the economy, keep machinery running and fending off attacks, worker's conditioned improved sharply. again not controversial.
in the 80s, his intervention in Africa and defense of Angola, sending in 25,000 combat troops and tanks, defeating South African aggression helped bring about regime change in South Africa that led to Nelson Mandala's freeing and the end of apartheid.
Castro did not install and prop up the murderous, brutal Pinochett regime.
nor Marcos, Pol Pot, the Shah of Iran............etcetera nth times.
or rape the resources of every latin american country, tin from Bolivia, copper from Chile, wood from Paraguay, oil from Venezuela, while keeping tyrants in power so local resistance could be crushed and kept suppressed.
he didn't stage coups or drop naplam on children in vietnam or kill freedom fighters in Nicaragua. sell cocaine on American streets to buy weapons, or kill god knows how many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions Iraqi women, children and elderly, not to mention men.
he didn't assassinate heads of states or turn countries like Guatemala into banana republics.
these are just a SMALL sample of things other leaders have done.......wink.
just about every US president has killed more innocent people than Castro could even dream of.
All the murderous, tyrannical dictators many lump Castro in with were direct products of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
as we ALL know, from all sides and angles, Castro never played on that team, he was never part of those dictators.
Name a dictator that you think Castro by deeds should be lumped in with, and chances are high you'll find the US behind them.
he was no angel and he didn't always make the best or right choices, but he never sold himself to become the murderous monster the US was hoping he'd be.
he was never Kissinger or Cheney.
the man had integrity and was sincere. his policies were the least oppressive of any US administration.
I invite everyone to fact check all claims and assertions made in this article.
Last edited:
