Thursday, August 03, 2006

Curious about Castro

dr. elsewhere here

Long time no see.
Long time no think.

It’s been very very hot. And very very humid. Sure thought I left that behind when I departed the deep south.

More on that later.

It seems that one cannot leave the teeming torrent of current events for more than a few days without completely losing whatever grip one might have on the meaning and import of the flow that has become inundation.

As usual, Joe has been giving more than ample coverage to matters at the fore; Lebanon, and its accompanying insanities appear to have exposed the reality he was so cautious about when first this nightmare tore through our sensibilities. As horrifying as it might sound, it might take such carnage at the hands of Israel for the world to adjust its perspective on the middle east bully, much as the Holocaust forced the world to adjust is perspective on anti-Semitism. As the world turns….

And the nightmares just keep screaming forth, with Palestine and Iraq shouting for attention, as well as Afghanistan, not to mention Africa and our own little hell heating up for who knows what kind of summer climax to distract us from NOLA’s Katrina, or even from the upcoming elections that look oh so very bad for the repugs (yet what dems are watching the voting problems that could reverse this edge??).

For now, though, I’m curious about Castro.

I've actually long been fascinated with the man and his mission, I confess. Back in the late 60s, when his communist project was gathering steam after surviving our Bay of Pigs fiasco, the tales about the successful farming collectives, the removal of the wealthy and the predatory corporations that supported them, the support for the arts and education, and the miraculous health care, it was all so intriguing. Of course, it was also all subsidized by Soviet Russia. But then, how much of that sort of progressive social action would have happened had Castro taken up with the US instead of the USSR?

Cuba’s history, and Castro’s role in it, are extremely complex, far more than most of us realize. I claim no great insights, mostly just curiosity. Some interesting details that get swept under the carpet include:

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

* Pre-Castro Cuba under Batista actually enjoyed a lively economy and reasonably healthy middle class, along with a very slim sliver of uber-rich, and a large rural and urban poor.
* Batista was not the blond, blue-eyed Euro-blood portrayed in Sydney Pollack’s Havana, but instead embodied a blend of most of the descendents that populated the island, including African, Amerind, Chinese, and European.
* The Cuban mafia depicted in Pollack’s film, as well as in Coppola’s Godfather II, was quite realistic, as not only did American organized crime gain a significant foothold with gambling and prostitution and so on, but so did American corporate power impose its presence.
* Castro’s early support came in large part from the Cuban middle class, which was growing increasingly unhappy with the crime and American corporate influence (a universal theme, eh?), and he was championed as a Robin Hood of Latin America.
* Castro shifted to Communist ideology quickly after Havana fell in 1959, though he had not taken complete control immediately. There are stories of widespread slaughter of opponents when he did, though the US embraced him until he began expropriating US companies (particularly United Fruit) and paying them only the value they had been taxed on their properties. He visited the US only months after taking control as a guest of the Press Club, but was rebuffed by Ike. It was not long before he shifted to the attentions of Kruschev.
* The Bay of Pigs occurred in April of 1961, but had been hatched well before that, in fact prior to Ike’s leaving office, and thus likely prior to Castro’s shift to Communism, though no doubt intensified by it.
* The previous factoid should make anyone suspicious that the driving forces behind both the Bay of Pigs and the continuing rabid Castro-hating exile faction based in Miami might have at least some support from those American mobsters (and even American corporations?) who lost so much revenue when Castro took over.
* Given the numbers of vigilante missions taken by the thuggier elements of this exile faction, including their purported role in JFK’s assassination and Luis Posado Carriles’ terrorist activities (also apparently protected if not sanctioned by our government), suspicions of mob influence gain further ground.
* In another familiar US delusion, those backing the Bay of Pigs invasion insisted the Cuban people would be emboldened by it and join in the overthrow of Castro, but in fact, even E. Howard Hunt had to admit (albeit decades later) that his interviews of Cubans in Havana prior to the invasion showed full throttle enthusiasm for Castro.
* Stats about pre-Castro Cuba differ, depending on who’s presenting them. For example, exiles like to claim that under Batista, there were high wages and a high per-capita income (of course, these numbers can look good despite high unemployment and huge wealth disparity, as we see increasingly here in the US). In contrast, more Castro-friendly data show that Cubans now enjoy 100% literacy, low infant mortality rates, and 100% health coverage by a system acclaimed the world over for its emphasis on preventive care and natural treatments. Get this: Americans and Cubans have the same life expectancy, and yet the cost in the US is almost $6000 per capita, compared to less than $300 in Cuba. In fact, Castro has done more exporting of medicines than of revolution, even offering medical teams to NOLA after Katrina (which left Cuba with little damage and no death, due to exquisite planning), which Bush rejected.
* Perhaps the most fascinating example of Castro’s resilience can be seen in the Cuban recovery from the fall of the Soviet Union, which had essentially subsidized the island’s economy for three decades. Immediately after, food production and nutrition on the island plummeted, caloric intake dropped precipitously, and a crisis appeared imminent with an 80% drop in foreign trade. Instead of rolling over and begging to be bailed out, Castro converted its agriculture from conventional methods that included huge Russian tractors and polluting pesticides into a “Green Revolution” that, like the health care system, has become of model for sustainable agriculture the world over, while recovering the health of the population and the economy to previous levels.
* For those of you who saw Motorcycle Diaries, you’ll recognize the mind and heart behind the Cuban healthcare system as Che’s sidekick, Dr. Alberto Granado, on that journey; for those of you who have not seen it, do!


Clearly, I have a bias to this sort of accomplishment that empowers the poor and ultimately respects the planet, especially in light of the fact that Cuba has been the tiny fly living in the shadow of the cranky, rolling elephant for so long.

I have a friend who had a deep interest, on several dimensions, in the Hemingway library in Havana, and so traveled there when it was not so discouraged as it is now. She was fortunate enough to meet with Castro, have dinner with him, and report that his investment in preserving Hemingway’s work was vast and sincere, as was his knowledge of the material. She also found him charming, urbane, personable, and a delightful conversationalist, as well as dedicated to his people, though he focused the discussion on matters Hemingway.

At one point in our chat about her exciting adventure, I commented to my friend that I had long wondered if Castro might have led his country differently had he not been so relentlessly dogged by the US all these years. I also wondered if he might have allowed for elections, might have relaxed some of the communist limits on commercial enterprise, and might have encouraged cultural exchanges had the US not forced him into isolation. But it is easy for me to account for a paranoid and protective response to numerous assassination plots and open hostility from one’s closest neighbor; any other response would seem suicidal, really. She agreed, though she admitted that she had little to go on beyond the sketchy histories we are privy to. And, of course, being charmed by the guy.

All this being said – including the heavy investment of the mob in Batista’s Cuba, the role these Cuban thugs played in the Bay of Pigs invasion and the JFK assassination, the role they continue to play in terrorizing the island and its leader, the continued harboring of these terrorists (most obviously Posado) by our government – is it worth considering that Castro’s illness may not be death, as Joe suggested (via Joy), but induced, as in poisoning?

I have nothing to support that assertion but suspicion. But suspicion well-based.

It will likely be weeks if not months before we know anything more of Castro’s condition and fate. His ministers claim to have spoken with him and say he is recovering, and his sister notes his illness but also his strength; if the reports are accurate, he is indeed ill, weakened, and in for a long recovery, given the nature of surgery for diverticulosis. Or whatever it may be.

In the meantime we have plenty of information to consider, such as the Bush administration’s decision just two weeks ago to apply $80 million to the support of Cuban dissidents (which in itself sounds almost as if maybe they knew something?), and of course, the shameful and depraved celebration of an old man’s illness by the same Cuban exiles who could not stomach returning a child to his father if that father was in the same country as this ailing leader of an isolated but self-reliant island.

Would Elian be better off had he remained in the US with video games and Nikes and unbridled pollution and astronomical health care and education costs? Would Cuba have been better off had Castro remained enamored of the US with its NYTimes and Coca Cola and cars and astronomical wealth and weapons?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the effect that this grudge about Castro has had on the price of sugar in the US. It is a subsidized price here, as a consequence of the US anti-Castro policy. The wealth that rolls in due to artificially-inflated sugar prices has caused an ugly distortion of politics in Florida, Louisiana, and, by extension, Congress and the Presidency.

If that's not bad enough, it also means that corn syrup is cheaper than cane sugar in the US, and so is the sweetener of choice for the US food industry. Corn is a fairly common allergen, whereas cane sugar is not. So, millions of Americans are continuously poisoned by an allergen that no one in government dares name. And the obesity epidemic just gets worse. Not because of "sugar", which was consumed in huge amounts long before the obesity epidemic began. Connection? Bet on it.

Every country ends up paying for its sins, one way or another.

Anonymous said...

Never met a Cuban in my life..do not know much about the history/country but as a human being, I am MORE THAN DISGUSTED about the horrible behaviour of the Florida Cubans..are they supposed to be Christians??? What a terrible low-life group!!!!!If I'd be Cuban, I'd be VERY ASHAMED of these partying thugs...well, I am ASHAMED that "human beings" can be so awful...absolutely NO CLASS!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this, Dr E. I've always been perplexed by America's attitude towards Castro, when, from what information about Cuba is allowed into this country, it has seemed clear that Castro has improved the lot of the Cuban population.

And just compare and contrast its resilience during last year's hurricane season with OUR utter helplessness to avert many horrific disasters during that same season!

Anonymous said...

unirealist, as ever, thanks for your obscure but always important tidbit. the sugar thing is quite key, though it should be noted that russia essentially subsidized cuba's sugar industry until the wall's fall, paying way more than it was worth and trading expensive items for it, like tractors and weapons.

peg, i'm with you; i never quite understood why we took such a harsh position, and just being commies always appeared to be an excuse. knowing what was lost when castro took over, and who remains so obviously ticked off about it, sure puts a lot in perspective. hard to find a group as deeply offended (for comparatively so much less lost than others in the world) as cuban exiles in miami.

i remember meeting a cuban girl - very white with strawberry blond hair! - in high school, and the girl who introduced us spoke of her parents, both professionals, having to whisk her out of cuba in 59, all in such hushed, tragic tones. even then, i didn't get it.

my office mate in grad school was cuban, but too young fo have been boated over. one of the finest women i've ever met, very ambitious and open-minded. but, we never discussed castro. i've been thinking of a way to ask, about him and about elian.

Anonymous said...

Cuba was owned by Meyer Lansky until Batista fled. This much is clear from Dennis Eisenberg's obscenely laudatory but very readable biography of Lansky.

At that time Castro had never called himself a 'communist' and was to a certain extent pro-American. It would be interesting to study why the US government used the sugar weapon and forced the Cuban authorities into an alliance with the USSR. The US end is not something I have studied but surely the aim must have been to help the Mob? Why else? Stupidity? I strongly doubt it. Even public relations - painting the 'enemy at the gates' - doesn't rub, because they had the US population by the balls in that department anyway. Think of all those lost profits.

As for Lansky, he also owned Miami and the Bahamas...which he kept. Struck out across the Atlantic in the 1960s too. So no huge problem.

It is truly frightening to hear the US government's current talk of 'hastening democracy' in Cuba - i.e. setting up a pro-US dictatorship to grind people's faces in the dirt. You can be sure that they won't be able to stage a 'colour revolution'. You can be equally sure that people will resist, by force of arms if necessary. Those who own the US may fight to the death of the last Miami Cuban wiseguy, but their victory is by no means guaranteed. There's hope, friends! Cuba is not the Baltic States etc.

b

Joseph Cannon said...

I suppose I should add my own bit.

Castro ran a dictatorship, and there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. His stances on some social issues, such as homosexuality, were appalling. No one should claim that I ever held sympathy for Fidel Castro.

On the other hand, the United States has supported -- and even installed -- despotic regimes in other small countries, regimes which made Castro seem comparitively tame. Look and see: Saudi Arabia, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama...

The paradox of the Cold War era was that any third world revolution which attempted true democracy usually saw democracy undermined by corrupt, U.S.-supported interests. In other words, if Castro had tried to run free and honest elections in (say) 1964, the mobsters would have found some way to use those elections to regain power.

We see this happening today. That's why, not so long ago, the obviously spooked-up Wally Hilliard went to Cuba to slip a rolex watch onto the wrist of one of Fidel's top aides:

http://www.madcowprod.com/10102005.html

I don't know who will run Cuba within the next five years, but we can already see the basic outlines of the future. Organized crime. Casinos -- owned by foreign interests. Prostitution. Sex slavery. Religious cults. Extremely ill-paid laborers working under harsh conditions for international corporations.

Dopn't be surprised to see the new government give sanction to pyramid schemes and other financial scams. That's what occurred in post-communist eastern Europe -- with results that were particularly disastrous in Albania.

sunny said...

but we can already see the basic outlines of the future. Organized crime. Casinos -- owned by foreign interests. Prostitution. Sex slavery. Religious cults. Extremely ill-paid laborers working under harsh conditions for international corporations.

Joseph, don't count on that scenario being as easy as all that. With 100% literacy, Cubans have a leg up on Americans who have allowed Organized Crime figures, "legit" and otherwise, to take over the US. Not only that, but the revolutionary spirit is infused into those folks from birth. They know the score.

The thing I keep coming back to? Fidel will die an old, old man, having triumphed over myriad plots to kill and/or overthrow him by an unholy alliance of murderous anti-Castro terrorists and the US government. FIDEL WON!!! and they can never take that away from him. He will go down in history as having won a major moral and strategic victory over the mighty United States of America, and all I can say is "Viva Fidel!"

Anonymous said...

on the notion of benevolent dictators, odd as it may sound, i don't reject the notion out of hand. many conservatives rejected FDR for what they felt were his dictatorial policies touted as his new deal.

during times of crisis and chaos (for FDR, both the depression and the war), a leader who takes true command and guides the ship with benevolence can be the best route to recovery. during times of crisis and chaos, the plodding pace of a democratic approach can be deadly in the face of immediate demands. crisis and chaos spark as many possible solutions as there are minds, not so conducive to the consensus necessary for democracy to make a move. such situations would freeze the government, as we've seen repeatedly. if this occurs in a crisis, someone really does have to step in and take the wheel.

sort of like, when you're on a ship and a big storm comes up, you don't want each sailor grabbing the wheel; you really need a captain to take control. the best ones are those who steer with devotion to the crew, and who know when the crisis is over and relax their grip.

i know this goes against our treasured notion of democracy in many ways, but i don't think democracy inherently rules out strong leaders in times of crisis. nor do i think it rules out dictators, even incompetent and malevolent ones. such as what we got. that's where consensus builds and the system provides for democratic removal of the noxious imposter. unfortunately, this process can be destructively slow.

in castro's case, as i suggested in the post, i just have to wonder if he might have been more relaxed about elections and opposition had the neighborhood not been so gravely threatening to the very principles that gave rise to cuba's revolution in the first place. imagine had washington found himself constantly threatened, both officially and personally, by england from his first year in office.

castro was, after all, initially enamored with the US, and we dissed him. we did more than that, we stalked and attempted his assassination, more than 600 times. given that much dogged determination to rid cuba of his agenda (which i take to have been the transformation of the island to the hands of the people and their needs, and not to the commercial greed of american corporations), i just have to say i'd have been disinclined to give up the people's sanctity to the vagaries and vulnerabilities of the latin american election process (see the history of US meddling in hemispheric voting, now imported stateside) had i been in castro's shoes. and had i been in the shoes of the cuban peasants, i suspect i'd be grateful for his courage and devotion in the face of such odds.

i'm not completely snowed by the man. he is human, and no doubt hugely motivated by his own ambitions for himself and his role in cuba's status and future. but we don't see him tossing around bundles of cash at roulette tables in monaco, dripping with gold and jewels. i don't know quite what to do with recent rumors of castro's financial 'worth', except to suspect the reports as much as i suspect the boatloads of propaganda about him we're all too familiar with.

bottom line: i don't think it's necessarily a contradiction to have a benevolent dictator any more than it is to have a malevolent leader by election. hell, both bush and hitler were elected, for chrissake (pun intended).

with regard to castro's treatment of homosexuals, from the little i've read, the restrictive laws were in response to the potential of increases in prostitution, both hetero and homosexual, and the influx of AIDS (a serious problem if unleashed on an island), as well as protecting against an image of the country as a haven for sexual tourism, all emerging with the increase in foreign visitors to the country. this report seems thorough and even-handed, albeit from the us govt (99):
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/asylum/ric/documentation/CUB99001.htm

this interview gives castro's stated views on the concept of homosexuality, which does not necessarily contradict the official policy, but could be an easy copout for a macho latin communist:

http://www.metrog.com/travel/castro.html

"I don't consider homosexuality to be a phenomenon of degeneration. I've always had a more rational approach, considering it to be one of the natural aspects and tendencies of human beings which should be respected. That's how I view it... I am absolutely opposed to any form of repression, contempt, scorn or discrimination with regard to homosexuals. That's what I think."

how a government - democratic or dictatorial - deals with the potential for abuse, slavery, and corruption that accompanies prostitution of all kinds, is a difficult question. though one can argue that we should be allowed the freedom to visit prostitutes, i hardly think there is comparable 'freedom' in 'choosing' to be a prostitute in every instance. actually, in most instances.

i therefore don't find an inherent contradiction in castro's stated position and his policies regarding sexual behavior in cuba (which may not be consistent with the execution of these policies, as is too often the case across all policing efforts; alas, cops the world over are human, and inhuman, too). nor do i find it necessarily consistent.

what i love about this is the fact that castro's fiercely independent and visionary approach to solving community needs forces us to think really hard about our own assumptions on all manner of issues.

keep it comin'!