The Cuban Identity In Cuba

Save Cuba From Capitalism

The most revolutionary thing today is to be anti-capitalist

 

By Karima Oliva Bello

October 10 materialized, in the same cry of rebellion, the most revolutionary spirit of the times.  It had its first expression in the call for unity that has mobilized Cubans ever since: unity for a free nation against any form of foreign domination.

At that time, in the very heart of the sense of our budding identity, took shape the hardest of all the contradictions we have had to work out as a people, which has marked the course of our history until today: between the will to be masters of our destiny and the temptation to be in the image and likeness of the empire; first Spain, then the United States, fulfilling the destiny of a colony that they have traced for us.

Today, under a new appearance, the dilemma is the same.  The greatest threat to a country like Cuba is not only the interference policy of the United States and its desire to dominate our economy in the same terms as 60 years ago. Circumstances have changed and the world has been reconfigured since then.  The fundamental risk that we face, together with the other peoples of our region, is the advance of capitalism with giant steps.  It puts at risk our sovereignty and survival.

With the granting of unrestricted freedom to the market, characteristic of the neoliberal model, a new type of colonialism operates, through the mechanisms of coercion exercised by international financial organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, on national economies, demanding the imposition of structural reforms that facilitate transnational corporations the unlimited exploitation of the natural resources of our territories (here in the South) and of the labor force, in almost slave-like conditions.

The uncontrolled privatization of strategic sectors that provide key services to the population, the reduction of public spending, the precarization of working conditions, the withdrawal of the State from its responsibilities for welfare and social security, the criminalization of anti-capitalist social movements and a long list of abuses, represent now the greatest danger to the sovereignty of the former colonies.

There are those who are dissatisfied with Cuba's present, because they would like the changes to lead, once and for all, to the development of a good capitalism, as if that were possible (especially for the most vulnerable), or they want us to make concessions so that our neighbor forgives us and welcomes us back into its tutelage, as if that were worthy.

Those of us who do not want to see a history of rebellion turned into submission and abysmal social differences are not satisfied with Cuba's present either.  The only difference is that we understand that, in order to sustain the freedom bequeathed to us by our heroes and to achieve a progress that does not leave out any Cuban, the path must continue to be anti-imperialist.  The only way to be consistent with the legacy of the founding fathers is to try to save it from capitalism, to the last consequences.

Source

Caribbean people need to re-educate themselves and fight for social change

By Hudson George

Caribbean people need to re-educate themselves to fit into a changing world that is globalised by capitalism. Some of the religious and political values the majority of Caribbean people are trying to hold on to were indoctrinated in them during the colonial era by the capitalists. However, the capitalist system always keeps changing and, with the constant changes in capitalism, moral values within society changes too.

Unfortunately, the majority of Caribbean people do not understand how the capitalist system functions, and they seem to hold on the Christian values given to them by the capitalists during slavery. In some Caribbean countries people take the law into their own hands and punish citizens who participate in behaviour that is opposite to Christian values. And while the majority of citizens might condone mob rule justice, they are blind to the fact that they too are guilty of going against Christian values. In addition, the Christian values they are trying to hold on to is not what the capitalist media is selling to the Caribbean youth of today, through the media.

Caribbean societies’ Christian values have been compromised with the plantation culture of poverty, promiscuity and illiteracy. Therefore, in all Caribbean societies that claim to be Christianised, it is alright for a man to have children with various women and he will never experience resentment from the mainstream society. And the main reason why some Caribbean men are fathers of many children with different women, goes back to the days of slavery on the plantation when slaves were not allowed to raise a family.

During the period of slavery in the Caribbean, the slaves were not considered to be real human beings. Yet still, they were forced to be Christianised by their colonial masters, but they were not allowed to raise a family. They were considered as their master’s property and the religious leaders on the plantation colonies throughout the Caribbean were supportive of the slave system of such oppression. Today it is very common to hear that religious leaders of those churches that aided and abetted slavery are the ones talking about the lack of moral values in society, when they are the genesis of the problem.

However, the negative effects from that past plantation era still affect some Caribbean people up to this present time. Most Caribbean people’s biggest problem is that they do not read on a daily basis and because of the lack of reading and trying to analyse things, they become paranoid by new cultures introduced into society by the giant capitalist media. Therefore, the only way for Caribbean people to survive in this changing world that they do not have control over is to re-educate themselves.

Some Caribbean folks go to church on a weekly basis and, whatever they were told by the religious minister of church where they worship, they tend to believe everything without taking the extra time and effort to do further research. Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons why mob rule is very common in some Caribbean countries, whenever a minority of people act in certain ways that the majority of citizens are not accustomed to as part of the norms.

With globalisation and the spread of western cultures into the Caribbean, it is expected that new sub cultures will take root in society. And while the elders keep on defending the old style Caribbean values, the young people are exposed to social media that promote North American lifestyle values. Television news and entertainment influence coming from networks such as BET, CNN create a new mindset for today’s generation of Caribbean youth. Now they have access to iPods and internet cell phones and it is expected that some youths will conform to the foreign culture they see in the media.

In addition, most of the older Caribbean people might try to deny the fact that the usage and popularity of illegal drugs started in the 1960s during the hippie cultural era from the United States and, in the 1970s, the Rastafarian movement spread through the region with music and songs glorifying the smoking of marijuana.

Therefore, with a lack of information through education, some Caribbean people formalised what they think is right from wrong and the value system they created has deep roots in ghetto culture, which is not progressive even though it seems to be entertaining.

Now it is very common to see young Caribbean men trying to act as a macho-man to portray how manly they are in society; while on the other hand, they are lacking professional work skills to make a decent livelihood. However, these young Caribbean men do not realise that a man can only show he is a real macho man when he has a professional skill and a job that pays good wages. In addition, they do not recognise the fact that capitalism and a technology are more macho than they are, because within a capitalist society and a capitalist economy, new and better technology is always needed to keep capitalism functioning at the highest level.

However, the macho-man culture cannot build an economy and it will be impossible for Caribbean countries to make economic progress as long as they keep fighting against changes that have become part of the sub-cultures in western societies, because Caribbean countries still depend on western countries for economic and technical support. And it is not all sub-cultures in western societies that promote macho-man behaviour. However, due to the fact that the genesis of Caribbean societies begins with slavery and colonialism, the legacy of ignorance is still holding back progress and modern thinking.

Additionally, it is very easy to observe that most Caribbean folks do not understand that the societies they are living in are made up of sub-cultures that were imported from outside influence. For example, in some Caribbean countries, marijuana smoking has become part of the popular culture, even though it is an illegal drug according to the law. And if police officers catch users of that drug smoking it, they will be charged for breaking the law. Yet still, there is an increase in the number of people smoking marijuana but there are no functioning organisations with a plans trying to find a solution how to deal with marijuana issue, even though it is very common to hear musician artistes express their love for smoking marijuana.

However, with the lack of proper organisational skills and activism grouping among marijuana smokers, it is expected that they will continue pointing fingers at the police officers who arrest them for using the drug that they consider a holy herb. And unfortunately, they forget that the police role in society is to serve and protect the state according to the laws that govern the nation. It is very important that Caribbean people to re-educate themselves and fight for social change in a professional way. It will make no sense in trying to break the law and sometimes ignorantly making their own laws without the formation of proper political structure and planning.

But the strange thing is that is puzzling, with all the ignorance among some Caribbean people when it comes to dealing with social issues, that they are strong supporters of US President Barack Obama, who wants to bring about some social and political changes for the American people in a democratic and civil manner. However, it was very amazing to see the joy on Caribbean people faces, on the night of the US presidential election when President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

Those of us who are thinking openly and willing to accept changes in society can see clearly that Caribbean people only love President Obama because he is black. They are not paying any attention to Obama’s domestic policy for changing some things within American society. Therefore, based on how they are thinking in terms of dealing with social changes in the Caribbean, their political and social thoughts are more in line with the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s conservative backward politics.

They really need to re-educate themselves.

November 21, 2012

Caribbeannewsnow

Havana: ...Capitalism is a fraud... ...• • • An Interview with Communist Party of Spain (PCE) General Secretary - José Luis Centella • • •

By Serigo Alejandro Gómez

THE Spanish political activist, José Luis Centella, is far from the stereotypical figure at the podium. He speaks deliberately, exemplifying the adage that there is no need to shout when speaking the truth.

The party he has led since 2009 has a 90-year history of struggle, beginning with the defense of the Republic against fascism through the difficult times around the fall of the Berlin Wall. Centella is aware that the party is facing a new challenge today, given the economic and social crisis which is gripping Europe and especially Spain.

"For a period of 15 or 20 years, capitalism appeared to provide answers to Spain’s problems. There was employment, economic growth and a certain level of general well-being. And the socialist camp had disappeared. Even then, we said that was all fraudulent and based on speculation," the leader said in an interview with Granma.

"In Spain today we have an unemployment rate of 24%, while one of every two youth is without work. In regions such as Andalusia, where I come from, the figures are even worse. All of this added to a level of poverty which has increased five times over, in just a few years.

"That other capitalism was, in reality, a fraud. And now people are in a state of uncertainty, leading to expressions of rebellion.

"Given this situation," Centella affirms, "the PCE (Communist Party of Spain) appears as an instrument which can organize those affected by the crisis, to give the workers an instrument of struggle.

"At this time we are recovering the party’s strength. One of the keys to this has been reinitiating a clearly anti-capitalist and revolutionary discourse. Previously we went through a very difficult stage during which we lost our social base and strength, but in the last two congresses we have committed ourselves to strengthening our organization, to the displeasure of those who were rubbing their hands in glee, thinking that we were going to disappear."

In the midst of a serious social and economic crisis, channeling discontent along a revolutionary path is crucial, since as Centella said, "The danger exists that this [discontent] could be used by fascists."

"What fascism attempts to do is to identify the immigrant, your neighbor, as the enemy, to leave capitalism unscathed. The role of our party is to show who the real enemy is: a system which has plundered Spain, as it has many other countries."

LEARNING MORE

The nature of the struggle in which they are immersed has obliged revolutionary movements in Europe to seek unity. Thus Centella spoke of the alliances the PCE has made within the United Left (IU).

"The party is participating in elections through this alliance, but maintaining its independence and structure in the rest of its work. The other groups within it are not all communists, but they are anti-capitalist, nationalist or environmentalist. The Spanish left, as is the case in the rest of Europe, faces the challenge of showing that there are alternatives to capitalism. Doing this requires learning from all previous historical processes, but not copying them.

Centella believes that today Latin America is leading the confrontation with capitalism, where Marxism is in the streets, and said, "What is at stake in the coming elections in Venezuela is not whether Chávez or Capriles will be President, but rather whether socialism will be constructed or the previous system returned.

"The European left must be conscious that at this time in history, Europe is in the rearguard in this confrontation with capitalism. Today we have to learn, as opposed to teach."

I FEEL AT HOME HERE

With respect to attempts by certain forces on the Spanish right to push a more aggressive anti-Cuban policy, Centella commented, "There is one fact which they have never been able to change. The Spanish people feel a great deal of solidarity for the Cuban people; despite many attempts, the right wing has never been capable of building anti-Cuba sentiment. They have never mobilized more than a couple of gusanos."

What is increasing every day is solidarity with Cuba. Centella said, "In Spain, the case of the Five is increasingly known, it is no longer taboo. This is an issue that must be made known; it shows the injustice of a country which boasts about democracy and combating terrorism."

"The movement in solidarity with the Five is very solid and many people have even been drawn closer to Cuba and its history after learning about these anti-terrorist fighters.

"The PCE has also waged a battle around the issue of the U.S. blockade of Cuba. Through an intervention in Congress, we were recently able to get the Spanish government to issue a statement condemning the blockade. It is very difficult to justify when faced with direct questions." 

Centella’s long-standing relationship with Cuba has even turned him into a baseball fan. His team? Industriales. But his affection for the country goes much farther and he doesn’t hesitate to say, "I feel very much at home here."


June 14, 2012

granma.cu 

Has neoliberalism knocked feminism sideways?

By Rahila Gupta

How should feminists read our current times?   A major economic crisis rocks the developed world.   While austerity measures don’t appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US economy have had only a marginal effect.   The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system.   Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of youthful feminism emerge in the past decade.  At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be worn smooth.

The current phase of capitalism – neo-liberalism – which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, promotes privatisation and deregulation in order to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete and consume without interference from a bloated state.   According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s when ‘the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state’ broke down.  The UK government, for example, was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books.   The post-war settlement had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back.

The fact that second wave feminism and neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that feminism ‘served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society’.  I am with Nancy Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived in these conditions.   It is well known that in an attempt to renew and survive, capitalism co-opts the opposition to its own ends.  If part of the project of neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal.  Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns.   However, the right has little to say about patriarchy.    What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant.   The critique of the state mounted by feminists such as Elizabeth Wilson when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state.

Fraser’s analysis does not explain the current resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded.  It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism - the ‘I really, really want’ girl-power ushered in by the Spice Girls.   This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism (which some commentators characterised as post-feminist) represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda, shorn of its political context, by neoliberalism.   Incidentally, many of us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need for it.   In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters.

If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised, free even of patriarchal restraints.   It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while at the same time undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible.   The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace.   The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life.   In her essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that liberal capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’.  If women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make.   The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen, because prostitution is seen as a liberation from the drudgery of cleaning jobs.  Choice is their weapon against feminist objections.   In their so-called free expression of their sexuality, they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.   

Neoliberalism had other impacts: on the actual day-to-day political and social commitments of those concerned with gender justice.   At first feminists stood to benefit from the state’s gradual shedding of its functions which began under Thatcher, in that classic double-edged way in which capitalism operates. Southall Black Sisters (SBS) was founded in the same year that she came to power.   We who set up anti-racist, feminist and other community groups in the 80s complained that we were providing services which should have been part of the remit of the state – and that we were doing it for half the cost at the expense of our pensions (none), maternity rights (shockingly for a feminist group, none), working all the hours in the day with no employment protection – all this self-exploitation justified by our commitment to the cause.  The up side of it was that the service we provided was grounded in political insights into the nature of patriarchy, racism and class.

But this was only the half of it.   Over the next thirty years, the grants culture morphed into contracts and commissioning.  Why?  Partly because neoliberal ideology popularises the view that grants make us complacent whereas commissioning brings in competition, the ideal Petri dish for human development.  But competition for funding destroyed the solidarities we worked so hard at building with other women’s groups.  ‘Value for money’ concerns led to the introduction of targets; meeting them sometimes needed an element of creativity – how do you quantify success in supporting a woman facing domestic violence if she does not choose to leave her violent partner?  These outcomes take a long time and the short-termist, box-ticking culture of neoliberalism destroys the integrity of such work.

Fortunately, the neoliberal project of rolling back the state is not yet complete; some of the state institutions from the earlier, statist period came to SBS’s rescue.  The judiciary, hardly a bastion of progressive wisdom, put a break on the commissioning process when SBS challenged Ealing Council’s decision to offer the domestic violence “contract” to all comers without having carried out a proper race equality impact assessment first. It was the equality duties placed on the state as a result of earlier political campaigns which, in this case, attempted to inject equality concerns into a depoliticised culture which is what neo-liberalism aims to create.

Additionally, the ‘best value’, the more for less principle opens the door to any provider as long as they can prove that they have some track record.  It is precisely this de-politicised culture that allowed the Home Office to take away the contract from POPPY for services to trafficked women, the foremost agency in the field, and award it to Salvation Army.   It didn’t matter that the women may not have easy access to abortion advice or services, that the service is provided within a strong Christian ethos, that the umbrella body, Churches Against Sex Trafficking in Europe or CHASTE - to which the Salvation army belongs, also bids for government contracts to lock up trafficked women on their way to being deported in the same safe house where trafficked women are fighting for their right to remain; one building is both prison and refuge. The climate in which we operate has become so depoliticised that agencies in the field who want to differentiate themselves from the faith sector call themselves the ‘violence against women sector’ and not feminists!

While the state plays an important role in safeguarding the rights of women, a state in hock to the neoliberal project can damage the health of vulnerable sections of society.   Black women, in particular, are alive to the contradictions that the state polices their communities more heavily and uses harsh immigration rules instead of better resources when we turn to it for protection against issues like forced marriage.

This marketisation of the voluntary sector is neoliberalism’s attempt to find new markets.  It thrives on the continuous expansion of markets; hence the growing privatisation of what had been regarded as off-limits – public utilities, education, prisons, social housing – but we are reaching saturation point.   Neoliberalism is no longer delivering growth in the developed world, and therefore profit, the holy grail of capitalism as we can deduce from the mess in Europe and America.   David Harvey believes that the main achievement of neo-liberalism has been re-distributive; money has flowed from the poor to the business elites.  Our latest budget makes the poor rather than the rich pay for growth programmes to kick start the economy.   In Brazil, Nestle has targeted people earning less than $2 a day by launching a floating supermarket along the Amazon selling fizzy drinks and milk powder – so we have the obscenity of obesity and malnourishment sitting side by side.  If this is not scraping the barrel then I don’t know what is.

I believe we are witnessing an implosion of neo-liberalism but the opposition to it has yet to take a concrete shape.   As Elaine Husband of the New Democratic Party in Canada said, people are tired of being trickled down on.   How do we re-capture the state from the neoliberal project to which it is in hock?  What is the way forward?  A new society hovers on the horizon and feminism should play an important part in shaping it.

I’m no Mystic Meg but here are some issues worth considering: Resistance is important.   That’s one of the reasons why the neoliberal project developed unevenly.   Thatcher privatised many things, but left the NHS alone because there would be fierce resistance although David Cameron seems less daunted by it; women have often been the
backbone of resistance movements, from the miners’ wives onwards to Skychef and Gate Gourmet, second wave feminists from the 70s are both strengthened by and need to nurture the current wave; we need to let go of growth as a gold standard of economic health. Serge Latouche, a French academic, argues for 'degrowth' or contraction economics.  Growth in terms of meeting real human need makes sense, growth achieved through consumerism does not; the market needs the state more than the state needs the market as we have seen from the massive injection of government funds to rescue the banking sector; neoliberalism has encouraged the growth of a permanent underclass, usually made up of illegal immigrants and predominantly women in some categories, who live completely outside the system, which makes a nonsense of democracy’s commitment to universalism.

Feminism needs to guard against atomisation – which is what neoliberalism thrives on.  We should be a transformative movement, should recognise, understand, analyse what damage neo-liberalism has done to all our traditional allies.   We need to get involved in the major movements of our time, to redraw the links, participate in Occupy London, fight religious fundamentalism as well as sexual violence, wage inequality and poverty.   These may be old goals for a new culture but they can do with re-stating as we haven’t got there yet.

This article stems from an ippr roundtable discussion on Gender Justice, Society and the State, held in December 2011 to examine the role of the state in delivering gender justice and whether the culture of neo-liberalism had anything to offer women.

4 January 2012

opendemocracy.net