💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › cuban-libertarian-movement-who-are-we.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 23:15:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Who Are We? Author: Cuban Libertarian Movement Date: 2004 Language: en Topics: Cuba, history Source: Retrieved on 7th May 2021 from http://utopianmag.com/archives/tag-The%20Utopian%20Vol.%204%20-%202004/who-are-we/ Notes: Translated by Ron Tabor.
The aim of the Cuban Libertarian Movement (CLM) is to encourage
revolutionary anti-authoritarian activism in Cuba, in particular, and on
the American continent, in general, with the goal of creating a more
effective anarchist movement that can actively participate both in the
current struggle of the workers for control over their lives and in the
international counter-cultural resistance.
We are not an anarchist organization or, much less, a closed circle of
the “elect” that pretends to lead or judge Cuban anarchism. On the
contrary, we are a network of collectives with sections in different
cities of the world that is seeking to establish more effective
coordination among the distinct currents that make up Cuban anarchism
today, from anarcho-syndicalism, revolutionary anarchism,
anarcho-communism, cooperativism, communalism, primitivism,
eco-anarchism to libertarian insurrectionism.
If you are an anarchist or anti-authoritarian, anti-patriarchal,
anticlerical, rebellious and idealistic, you too can be part of this
network and actively participate, in an individual or collective
fashion, in the development of today’s
Cuban anarchists have actively participated in the fight for the
liberation of the proletariat since the days of colonial oppression. The
struggle developed during the middle and final years of the 19^(th)
century, headed by the “group of the three Enriques”: Enrique Roig de
San MartĂn, Enrique Messonier and Enrique Creci, who exemplified the
movement. By 1888, this revolutionary anarchist nucleus publicized its
class position against politics and the state in the pages of the
anarchist periodical, The Producer, which published a series of texts
entitled “Reality and Utopia” (I to VI). These articles explain in broad
strokes the general conceptions of our comrades of that period, in a
true struggle against the current, that is, within a movement in which
democratic, liberal, annexationist, autonomist, and
pro-independence-nationalist (the “liberation of Cuba”) ideologies
predominated. Nevertheless, the historical falsification of the history
of the workers movement that continues in Cuba to this day has obscured
the importance of the anarchist/libertarian ideal in the development of
the anti-state struggles of the oppressed.
Cuban anarchists also participated in the difficult struggles against
the dictatorships of Machado and Batista. Against the latter, they
fought on all fronts, some with the guerrillas in Oriente Province or
with those in the Escambray Mountains in the center of the island;
others joined the underground and participated in the struggle in the
cities. They also built bridges between the organized sectors of the
struggle against Batista in Cuba and the anarchist anti-Franco struggle
in Spain via comrades Antonio Degas (member of the CNT living in Cuba)
and Luis M. LinsuaĂn, the son of another outstanding anarchist
revolutionary killed in Alicante, Spain, at the end of the Spanish
Revolution. The aims of the anarchists coincided with the desires of the
majority of the people: liquidation of the military dictatorship and an
end to political corruption, as well as the creation of a more open
arena for the enjoyment of democratic liberties, which would make
ideological continuity possible.
The pamphlet, Libertarian Projections, published in 1956, which attacked
Batista, also described Castro as “not meriting any confidence,” and as
one who “does not keep promises” and “fights only for power.” It was
with this in mind that Cuba anarchists put themselves in greater contact
with other revolutionaries. By the time the insurrection had triumphed,
Castro had made himself the leader of the entire process, largely as a
result of an incorrect evaluation on the part of the opposition, which
considered him a “controllable” evil—necessary but temporary—owing to
the modest, social democratic nature of his program.
In the early days of 1959, the libertarian publications, Foodworkers
Solidarity and The Libertarian, expressed in their first issues a
favorable, and at the same time, cautious and hopeful, attitude toward
the “revolutionary” government.
Nevertheless, the National Council of the Cuban Libertarian Association
(CLA) published a manifesto which “exposes, informs and judges the
triumphant Cuban Revolution” and, after explaining the opposition of
anarchists to the past dictatorship, proceeded to analyze the present
and the near future. It declared that the recent “institutional
changes,” while opening up a new stage for Cuba, should arouse “no
enthusiasm or illusions,” although it didn’t deny, with a degree of
irony, the “certainty, at least for awhile, that we will enjoy
sufficient liberties to enable us to carry out propaganda.” It continued
with a well-aimed attack against “state centralism” as a road toward an
“authoritarian order.” The document concludes with a reference to the
workers movement, emphasizing again the efforts of the Cuban Communist
Party (CCP) to “regain the hegemony over the workers movement they
enjoyed under Batista,” although ending with the opinion that this will
probably not occur. The manifesto concludes on a note of optimism: “The
panorama, taken as a whole, is breathtaking....”Along the same lines, on
February 15, 1959, Foodworkers Solidarity published another manifesto to
the workers and the people in general, warning that although the
revolutionary government might not, in such a short time, “set up
functioning workers institutions, it is our right to have the norms of
freedom and democratic rights respected and exercised.... Elections in
the trade unions must be organized, the (workers) assemblies must begin
to function...” Finally, it left to the workers of each union the
question of how to handle removing the old bureaucrats from office. “It
is crucial that the workers themselves decide on removing and disbarring
their past union leaders, since to do this in any other way would be to
fall into the same authoritarian practices we fought against yesterday.”
The same publication, in its editorial of March 15, bitterly condemned
the “dictatorial procedures (of the Congress of the Workers of
Revolutionary Cuba—CWRC)...deals and orders from above that impose
measures, fire and install leaders.” It also accused “elements...in the
assemblies which, without being members of the unions themselves, vote
en bloc in favor of particular groups of leaders.” Among the other
abnormalities and “procedures” it denounced were the following:
“...periodically packing the assembly rooms with armed militiamen in
flagrant attempts to coerce the workers; the lack of respect for normal
rules of procedure; and stooping to the lowest types of maneuver to
maintain control over the unions.” As we know, the struggle to
liberalize the workers movement was, unfortunately, lost despite the
crucial efforts of the anarcho-syndicalists in that arena.
The opposition to anarcho-syndicalism came directly from sectors of the
July 26 Movement (J26M), instigated by elements of the Cuban Communist
Party who had infiltrated that organization, which, in turn, had taken
over the leadership of the unions of the entire island in virtual
military fashion. This takeover was said to be temporary, with the
objective of purging the most corrupt elements inherited from the
Batista dictatorship until new and free elections could be held. As
could have been predicted and was customary in Cuba, the temporary
turned into the permanent. But where did these union elements come from,
since it was a known (and notorious) fact that the July 26 Movement
never had a base in the unions or even a general sympathy among the
workers, let alone an active working class leadership? The new trade
union leaders mostly came from two antagonistic camps: the syndicalists
of the Workers Commissions, who had oriented to electoral politics and
had been enemies of the old government, and members of the Cuban
Communist Party. The first were motivated by cynical opportunism and
lent themselves to manipulation by the state. The second were extremely
dangerous and, in spite of their stormy past, clearly enjoyed official
support from the highest levels of the government. Both sectors hated
each other and prepared for an overt struggle for hegemony over the
proletarian sector, but, as we will discuss, wound up forming an amalgam
that would prove disastrous for the Cuban workers movement.
By July, the Cuban State was completely in the hands of Castro and his
closest group of collaborators. Members of the Cuban Communist Party
were still seen in the highest positions of government. The anarchists
noted this with considerable alarm; they understood correctly that the
influence of the CCP in the government and the trade unions meant a
mortal blow to them, both in the short and in the long run. The
anarchists’ most frightening nightmares soon became the reality. Castro
publicly declared that he had no relationship with the CCP, although he
recognized the existence of “communists” within his government along
with persons with anticommunist affiliations.
Towards the end of the year, the Xth National Congress of the CWRC was
held, at which a majority of those present voted to accept the thesis of
“Humanism.” This was a new species of philosophy that had been created
at the beginning of the year and was said to rise above the traditional
camps of communism and capitalism that had been established by the Cold
War. It proclaimed the slogans of “Bread with Liberty” and “Liberty
Without Terror.” Cubans, creative as always, had invented a totally new
socioeconomic system in order to come up with at least some sort of
ideological justification for the new regime. David Salvador, the top
leader of the July 26 Movement faction, presented himself as its most
intrepid chief. For its part, the PCC, well represented at this congress
although in an obvious minority, put forward the musty slogan of
“Unity.” By November 23, the congress found itself totally divided on
the questions of passing resolutions and electing leaders. The
anarchists in the Cuban Libertarian Association published in Solidarity,
on the 15^(th) of that month, a “Call to the Xth Congress,” in which it
declared that “The congresses that we so long endured had as their only
important issue the question of the distribution of the posts of the
apparatus.” It ended on an optimistic note: “ ...but we would like to
hope that the present congress will mark a step forward in the advance
of revolutionary syndicalism,” and added hopefully “that it might help
raise the profound questions facing the proletariat above the level of
personalism and sectarianism of cliques and parties...” None of this
happened.In the face of the division over the road forward, Castro
personally addressed the congress. He insisted on the necessity of
“defending the revolution,” which required “truly revolutionary
leaders,” by electing a leadership that could be supported by all the
delegates to the congress, and proposed David Salvador for that
position. The only faction that ought to prevail is “the party of the
country,” Castro declared. In effect, as in the old days of the Republic
(as much as one would like to renounce and forget the fact), the
government turned the General Secretary of the CWRC into an appendage or
minister of the government. The Executive Committee was composed of
delegates from the M26J and the CCP. On the 25^(th) of November, the
last day of the Congress, the “communist” leader, Lázaro Peña, assumed
control of the leadership of the workers organization, although David
Salvador remained its nominal head.
It was only logical that the trade union representatives of the J26M,
who had opposed the CCP taking control of the congress and the CWRC as a
whole, would, after listening to the explanations of the Fidel Castro,
the “supreme leader,” accept the government’s directive without
objection. This was for the simple reason that orders came from above
that indicated that one either agree to it or go to jail. “Fatherland or
Death, We Will Win!” And so the congress, nicknamed the “congress of
melons” (olive green—the color of the M26J—on the outside; red—the color
of the CCP—on the inside), ended, thus closing a century of trade union
struggles through which the workers had managed to achieve some gains in
the struggle against employer abuse. At this point, however, everything
changed. In a few short months, the State had turned itself into the
true, one and only, boss.
The visit of the German anarchist AgustĂn Souchy to Havana in the summer
of 1960 is not well known. Even less known is the publication of his
pamphlet, “An Eyewitness Account of the Cuban Revolution,” which
conveyed his opinion about the Cuban peasantry and the new Agrarian
Reform Law, with which Castro tried to astound and fool the world,
beginning with the Cubans. Souchy had been a famous figure in the Cuban
libertarian milieu since the previous year, when, knowing that he was
considering visiting Cuba, Solidarity had published, over several
issues, his long essay, titled “Libertarian Socialism,” with the purpose
of clarifying basic libertarian concepts and as a hidden hope that these
ideas might take concrete form in a new society whose basic outline he
had sketched out.
Souchy’s visit came at a difficult time, when, as in all revolutions
(and in war), the people bounced between fear, uncertainty and hope. At
the beginning of the year, provocations against the anarchists had
begun, in the form of veiled false accusations made by the official
organ of Castroism, Revolution. Nevertheless, Souchy’s visit, invited as
he was by the government to study and offer his opinion of Cuban
agriculture, filled many comrades with enthusiasm, and the German writer
was greeted with jubilation in various events organized in his honor and
in a cordial welcome held by the libertarian milieu on August 15, 1960.
As a student of agrarian problems, Souchy had written a pamphlet, much
commented upon in Europe, titled The Cooperatives of Israel, about the
organization of the kibbutzes in that country. The Cuban government
hoped for something similar from him as a means of promoting its massive
agrarian program and as propaganda intended for the international
anarchist milieu. This didn’t happen.
Souchy traveled all around Cuban with his eyes and his heart open to all
he was shown and all that he could observe on his own. Cuba, he said,
was approaching too closely to the Soviet model; the lack of freedom and
of personal initiative could lead nowhere but to the centralization of
the agrarian sector. He noted the same process in the entire economy.
Souchy was comparably honest throughout his account and his pamphlet was
published without official censure. However, three days after he left
Cuba, the entire edition of this work was rounded up by the Castroist
government at the suggestion of the leadership of the CCP and destroyed
in its entirety. Luckily for history, the editorial board of
Reconstruction in Buenos Aires, Argentina, reproduced Souchy’s complete
original version, with an excellent preface by Jacobo Prince, in
December of the same year.
In June 1960, convinced that Castro was leaning more and more toward
establishing a totalitarian government of the Marxist-Leninist type, the
road to which was slowly asphyxiating all freedom of expression,
communication, association and mobilization, the majority of the
sections of the Cuban Libertarian Association decided to put out a
Declaration of Principles, presented as representing the Libertarian
Syndicalist Grouping and signed by the Group of Revolutionary
Syndicalists. The purpose of using this name was to “avoid repression
against members of the CLA.” The aim of this document, which is vital
for understanding the situation of the Cuban anarchists at that time,
was, besides orienting the Cuban people, to warn the government about
the disaster toward which it was heading and to open polemics with the
CCP, some of whose figures were still to be found in important positions
in power.The Declaration consisted of eight points which attacked the
“State in all its forms”: it described, consistent with libertarian
ideas, the economic functions of the unions and the federations,
declared that the “land” should “belong to those who work it,” held up
“collective and cooperative work” as an alternative to the centralism
proposed in the government’s Agrarian Reform, emphasized free collective
education for children, likewise with culture, polemicized against
nationalism, militarism and imperialism, which it denounced as noxious,
opposed the plans to militarize the people, fearlessly attacked
“bureaucratic centralism” in favor of federalism, proposed the immediate
granting of individual liberty “as a way to achieve collective liberty”
and, finally, declared that the Cuban Revolution was like the sea, that
is, belonged to everybody, while energetically condemning the
“authoritarian tendencies that are developing within the very heart of
the revolution.” There’s little doubt that this was one of the first
direct attacks against the regime that came from an ideological
standpoint.
The response was not long in coming. In August, the organ of the CCP,
Today, under the signature of the party’s General Secretary, Blas Roca,
the highest ranking leader of the “communist” cadres, replied to the
anarchist declaration in violent terms, using the same false charges as
those of 1934, and adding the dangerous accusation that the authors were
“agents of the Yankee State Department.” In the words of one of the
authors of the Declaration, Abelardo Iglesias, “...finally, the former
pal of Batista...Blas Roca, answered us in the Sunday supplement, piling
insults on injuries.” It was significant that in response to an attack
on the Castro government it was the highest leader of the CCP who came
out in defense of the regime. In the summer of 1960, all doubts about
the nature of the regime began to be dispelled.
From that moment, those anarchists who were enemies of the regime had to
go underground. A polemic against Roca’s attack was planned, but, in
Iglesias’ words, “we did not succeed in convincing our printers, already
terrorized by the dictatorship, to print it. Nor was it possible to put
out an underground edition.” This was a question of a pamphlet of 50
pages replying to the CCP and Roca. One month before, the Libertarian
had dedicated its July 19 edition to celebrating the “Heroic attitude of
the Spanish anarchists in July 1936.” The components of the CNT in
Havana, enthusiastic at the revolutionary triumph, called for the
violent overthrow of Franco. That same issue, virtually entirely
dedicated to the libertarian role in Spain during and after the Civil
War, gave an account, on its last page and in an almost pathetic
fashion, of the CLA and the “struggle against the Batista dictatorship.”
The print run was large and the newspaper reminded the government ofthe
Cuban anarchists’ commitment to revolution and freedom. Those were the
last ideological shots fired. The Libertarian disappeared that same
summer.
The most militant Cuban anarchists had few choices. After the
Declaration they knew they would be harassed by the blind servants of
the regime who, converted into true sycophants, assigned themselves the
task of denouncing any Cuban who was not in agreement with the
revolutionary process. An accusation of “counterrevolutionary” was a
one-way ticket to jail or a trip to the executioner’s wall. The reasons
the libertarians decided to struggle against State terrorism through
violence were as valid then as they had been before. Anarcho-syndicalism
within the trade unions and the workers federations had, as we’ve seen,
passed into the Hereafter. There was no space in which to exercise
freedom of the press or carry out propaganda in favor of one’s ideas. To
attack the regime was a crime of lese patria. The economic policies of
the regime were leading to the Sovietization of Cuba with all its
negative consequences. All who proposed any ideas different from those
that came from the State were persecuted with a ferocity hitherto
unknown, while the State had come to take over all the homes, large
properties, businesses, ranches, sugar plantations, tobacco fields, in
short, all the richest of the country that, until that moment, had been
owned by the wealthiest layer of the bourgeoisie, national capitalism
and the Cuban-North American banks.
These “nationalizations” and expropriations were not criticized by the
libertarians. What they opposed, according to the Declaration, was the
state-ization of the entire wealth of the country in the hands of Castro
and the CCP. It was then necessary to take to the hard road of
clandestine activity or exile in order to begin the struggle against the
new and powerful dictatorship, which, as Casto Moscú explained, “...had
convinced us that all our efforts and those of our people had been in
vain and that we had arrived at a situation that was both extremely
difficult and far worse than any of the evils we had hitherto struggled
against.” In the face of the totalitarian situation, the great majority
of Cuban anarchists decided to revolt, initiating a struggle that was
condemned from the first day to end up as a total fiasco.
In the face of the Castroite repression, many of the anarchists who had
fought against the Batista dictatorship with the different guerrilla
struggles in the western, central and eastern parts of the country, saw
no other road than to resort once again to arms. As Moscú said, “an
infinite number of manifestos, denouncing the false postulates of the
Castroite revolution and calling the people into opposition, were
written.
Meetings were held to debate themes and to make people aware of the
disgraceful reality that confronted us,” and “plans were made to carry
out sabotage against the key props of the State...” Now totally
committed to the armed struggle, according to MoscĂş, these militants
“began to participate in cooperative efforts to support guerrilla
struggles that already existed in various parts of the country.” This
involved in particular two important guerrilla groups in the same area
that were operating with great difficulty owing to the fact that the
Sierra Occidental is not very high, while the province in which the
struggle occurred is narrow and very close to Havana. “More direct
contact existed with the guerrillas led by Captain Pedro Sánchez in San
CristĂłbal, since our comrades were actively involved in the guerrilla
struggle there, including supplying it with weapons. We also did all we
could to help the guerrillas commanded by Francisco Robaina (Machete)
who operated in the same mountain range.” Our comrade, Augusto Sánchez,
a fighter in these guerrilla struggles, was assassinated after being
taken prisoner. Since the guerrillas were considered to be bandits by
the government, the lives of those captured were rarely spared.
Besides Augusto Sánchez, the following “combatant comrades” were killed:
Rolando Tamargo and Ventura Suárez, shot; Sebastián Aguilar, Jr., killed
by rifle fire; Eusebio Otero, murdered in his home; RaĂşl NegrĂn,
harassed by persecution, shot himself. In addition, aside from MoscĂş,
the following comrades were arrested and sentenced to prison terms:
Modesto Piñeiro, Floreal Barrera, Suria LinsuaĂn, Manuel González, JosĂ©
Aceña, Isidro Moscú, Norberto Torres, Sicinio Torres, José Mandado
Marcos, Plácido MĂ©ndez and Luis LinsuaĂn, these last two, officers in
the Rebel Army. Francisco Aguirre died in prison; Victoriano Hernández,
sick and blinded by the tortures of imprisonment, committed suicide; and
José Alvarez Micheltorena, died a few weeks after getting out of jail.
On May 1, 1961, Castro declared his government “socialist,” (in reality,
Stalinist). This posed a dilemma for the libertarians inside and outside
Cuba. The regime demanded total commitment from its militants and
sympathizers. There was no right to abstain or to take a neutral
position. That had gone the way of the dodo. The Third Republic,
presided over by a budding dictator, offered no alternative but to be
under its control or to choose one of three options: jail, the wall
(execution), or exile.
After their initial encounters with the most Stalinist sectors of the
CCP, the sections of the Association of Cuban Libertarians understood
that the regime, well on the road to totalitarianism, was not going to
allow an anarchist organization to exist. The Cuban anarchist movement,
persecuted by the repressive organs of Castro’s dictatorship, was forced
to go into exile.
This was not the first time that Cuban anarchists had sought refuge in
the United States. Since the 19^(th) century, Tampa, Key West, and New
York, where they had the opportunity both to earn a living and to
maintain the proximity to Cuba necessary to continue the struggle, had
been the sites of choice of those persecuted comrades. During the
Machado and Batista dictatorships, the exiles had gone to the same
spots,where they were able to make contact with other anarchist groups
present in New York.
In the summer of 1961 in New York, a group of Cuban anarchists exiled in
that city formed the Cuban Libertarian Movement in Exile (CLME). At the
same time and with the same purpose, another group of Cuban anarchists,
known as the General Delegation, was organized in Florida. The group in
New York, almost all anarcho-syndicalists from the FoodWorkers Union,
established the first contacts with Spanish anarchists based in Boston,
who, through the efforts of Comrade GĂłmez, had been organized in the
Aurora Club. Also in that period, contacts were made with another group
of Spanish comrades located in New York, guided by J. González Malo and
grouped around the longtime libertarian organ, Proletarian Culture.
But without a shadow of a doubt, the largest measure of cooperation and
solidarity that the Cuban Libertarian Movement at that time received
came from an anarchist group known as the Libertarian League, guided by
Sam Dolgoff and Russell Blackweil. The latter had fought in the Spanish
Civil War and enjoyed some renown among the anarchist movement in North
America despite, or perhaps because of, his prior history as a
Trotskyist. Sam Dolgoff was at that time one of the most respected
figures in the North American anarchist milieu and possessed a
significant revolutionary history, aside from exercising great influence
within the North American left. We can’t forget his companion, Esther
Dolgoff, always at his side and often in front, a woman dedicated since
her youth to the social struggle and to the liberation of the working
class in the United States. Also working in this group was Abe Bluestein
who, like the rest, identified with the Cubans. It was this group of
anarchists that had founded the above mentioned Libertarian League,
whose mouthpiece was a bulletin called Views and Comments. Without the
collaboration of all the people in this anarchist association, the work
of the Cuban anarchists would have been much more difficult.
In August 1960, a pamphlet of 16 pages, titled Manifesto of the
Anarchists of Chile on the Cuban Revolution in the Face of Yankee and
Russian Imperialism, was published in Santiago, Chile. This document
denounced Castroism for the first time on the hemispheric level and was
in full agreement with the manifesto published by the libertarians in
Havana. This work, which is not well known owing to poor distribution
and to sabotage on the part of the Chilean Leninists, further clarified
the position of anarchists on the question of Castroism. The manifesto
remained buried in the shadows of mystery.
Condemned to 20 year prison terms, Isidro Moscú and Plácido Méndez were
stuck in the Cuban jails. Suria LinsuaĂn completed a minor term, but his
brother, Luis, was condemned to death for attempting to assassinate RaĂşl
Castro. As it helped the former, the CLME mobilized inter-national
anarchist opinion to save Luis’ life, while activating international
solidarity in support of all the anarchists suffering in Castro’s jails.
In 1962, the members of the CLME launched its propaganda campaign with
the publication of the Libertarian Information Bulletin, receiving
selfless and spontaneous support from Views and Comments in New York and
the endorsement of the Argentine Libertarian Federation by virtue of a
resolution passed at its Vth Congress, held in Buenos Aires, and
publicized in its organ, Libertarian Action. Both the Argentine and the
North American comrades responded to the call of the exiled Cuban
anarchists from the first moment and this support was never to waver in
the difficult years to come. Shortly thereafter, the CNT-FAI (the
Spanish National Confederation of Labor and the Iberian Anarchist
Federation) and an infinite number of other anarchist federations,
groupings and collectives throughout the world also demonstrated their
solidarity.
Today, as was the case 40 years ago, the Cuban people live in the face
of the threat of Yankee intervention, while suffering the terror and
despotism of Castro-Fascism, with the only difference that today the
Castroist system is more sophisticated and even more oppressive. The
jails remain full of oppositionists and young people who continually
rebel against totalitarianism and the lack of freedom. The executioner’s
wall is still the alternative for those who struggle against the regime
or intend to flee its absolutism.
Yet, inexplicably, the “Cuban Revolution,” as “leftists” like to call
the Castroist dictatorship, continues to receive so-called “critical
support.” We see how broad sectors of the “left” who oppose the death
penalty, universal military service (the draft), censorship in the mass
media, frame-ups carried out against fighters for social justice under
the guise of fighting terrorism, as they denounce gag laws that prohibit
free radio stations, as well as nuclear power, while facing surveillance
carried out by the repressive apparatus of the States, nevertheless
justify, and even applaud and support, these same outrages in the name
of anti-imperialism. “Critical support” has been and still is a slogan
for external but not internal consumption. It is based on a totalitarian
and Manichean type of thought: “with the revolution and against
imperialism,” in other words, those who don’t support us are in favor of
Yankee imperialism and therefore reactionary. This way of thinking is
the same as that of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.
Of course, Castroist propaganda reiterates this slogan on the global
level with all the power of its dollars and its invitations of free
vacations in Cuba, while a myriad of hacks and scribes well versed in
obscuring reality with sermons and parables have never been lacking. All
of which leads us to an objective vision of today’s Cuba: an island
morally, physically and economically ruined, whose inhabitants risk
incredible dangers to escape and where, ironically, funerals are free. A
gigantic satrapy oppresses our people, and when anyone denounces the
crime, he/she is accused of being in the pay of imperialism.
Nevertheless, the reality is evident, as all curious travelers who don’t
wish to sing the siren’s song can prove to themselves.
Within the anarchist movement today, those who oppose Castro’s regime
are not (at least not in their majority), the same as those anarchist
sectors which in the past denounced Castro’s crimes against anarchist
comrades. Today, such denunciations of Castro’s dictatorship are heard
in all corners of the world. We can also see that each day there are
fewer hard-core defenders of Castro’s tyranny in the current movement of
the oppressed, in the nuclei of resistance to Capital, among those
involved in direct confrontations, and among the men and women who fight
in a decentralized and autonomous fashion for workers control of the
factories, the indigenous communities, the universities, the oppressed
communities, and our own lives. On the contrary, today Castro’s
defenders are to be found among the rank and file of the reformist
movements and of Social Democracy, among those who vote “Leftist,” among
the militants of Lula’s Labor Party, among the sympathizers of Kirchner,
in the Bolivarian bureaucracy of Hugo Chávez, and among the ideologues
of Christian Democracy, in short, among bureaucratic left-wing
organizations, ranging from parasitic trade unions and patronage
organizations to fossilized student federations and Popular Fronts (in
capital letters). They are also found in European and Latin American
groups of capitalists who today invest in Cuba and are preparing
“capitalism with a human face” for us, while they bridle struggles for
self-determination and self-management throughout the continent and the
entire planet. Today, the Cuban regime, with all of its supposed
advances that its supporters still crow about, is no longer the example
or the road to follow, even for its defenders.
Today’s Cuba is a huge plantation in the fist of a cruel and bloody
overseer who does not hesitate to repress with all the means at his
disposal. Cuba needs and desires freedom, both individual and
collective. After the collapse of the Soviet “ancien regime,” the
economic crisis in Cuba has reached catastrophic proportions, while
nutritious frugality is daily transformed into dire poverty. The Cuban
working class has lost all its rights, while the trade unions are
nothing but organs of the state. Protest is a sin and striking is a
crime. All this may seem exaggerated, and actually, it is, but it is the
reality under which the island lives. And we invite all comrades who
wish to corroborate these facts to visit Cuba, away from the
“revolutionary” tours and the sirens’ songs.
The ultimate redoubt of Castroism is an efficient and imaginative
propaganda apparatus. In 1992, we saw it at work during Castro’s visit
to the Iberian Peninsula where he went to celebrate, along with the rest
of the corrupt rulers of the world, the Fifth Centenary of Spanish
genocide, justifying with his presence 500 years of ignominies on the
Latin American continent carried out by the “mother country” and other,
no less cruel stepmothers. On that occasion, we could verify just how
far these hypocritical “leftists” would go when they denounced the other
governments that lent themselves to this “celebration,” while passing
over in complete silence Castro’s participation in the event. Recently,
this typical “leftist” hypocrisy was also apparent during Castro’s visit
to Argentina, at the inauguration of Nestor Kirchner, who explicitly
promotes MERCOSUR (the Common Market of southern Latin America), as the
human face of capitalism.
Most recently, unemployment in Cuba has grown geometrically, while the
system of free public health care screams for modern technology and the
scarcity of medicine has become truly frightening. Meanwhile, the
educational system, which is totally complicit with the system, and
particularly in the mobilization of “voluntary” labor in agriculture, is
totally lacking in any type of critical thinking and humanism.
Students can neither think about freedom or even discuss or criticize
the educational system.