The End of Cuban Socialism

BBC wrote:

White House says Obama-Castro handshake 'not planned'

President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro's handshake at Nelson Mandela's memorial service was unplanned, the White House has said.

White House aide Ben Rhodes told reporters the two exchanged nothing more substantive than a greeting.

The Cuban government said the gesture may show the "beginning of the end of the US aggressions".

The US broke off diplomatic ties with Cuba in 1961 as Fidel Castro aligned with the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

And on Tuesday after the handshake, a White House official said the Obama administration still had grave concerns about human rights violations in Cuba, Reuters reported.

Republicans on Capitol Hill were quick to condemn the gesture, with one Republican congresswoman chiding the move during an unrelated hearing on Tuesday.

"Sometimes a handshake is just a handshake, but when the leader of the free world shakes the bloody hand of a ruthless dictator like Raul Castro, it becomes a propaganda coup for the tyrant," Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is known for her opposition to the Castro government, told Secretary of State John Kerry.

"Could you please tell the Cuban people living under that repressive regime that, a handshake notwithstanding, the US policy toward the cruel and sadistic Cuban dictatorship has not weakened."

Gradual thaw disrupted
The last time a US president shook a Cuban leader's hand was in 2000, when President Bill Clinton greeted President Fidel Castro, Raul's brother and predecessor, at a UN General Assembly meeting.

Under President Obama, the US has eased restrictions on Cuban-Americans travelling to the island and on remittances between family members across the two countries.

But the gradual thaw has been disrupted by the detention in Cuba of a US contractor.

Alan Gross, 64, was arrested four years ago while on a project to provide internet access to Cuba's small Jewish community.

On the fourth anniversary of his arrest, he wrote to Mr Obama to say he feared the US government had "abandoned" him, and asked the US president to intervene personally to help win his release.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

I don't see anything in a handshake, Bary Obame probably didn't even know who the shit anybody near him was, considering how far up his own arse he is.

Soviet192491 wrote:

Not surprised, tbh... Didn't Fidel try to shake Tony Blair's hand at some summit and Blair gave him some disgusted look and refused to shake it?

Loz wrote:

That must be the worst sarcasm i've seen in years.

EPC wrote:

Worst. Post. Ever.

soviet78 wrote:

I see what you did there RR, but it did give me a jump there for a second, given the dramatic title, which I would have automatically written off had it not been for the "OP: Red Rebel".

Yami wrote:

End of Cuban socialism? It never ever began. It’s a hell hole where the basics are rationed. Except to the Castro’s. Where there are no free trade unions, freedom of speech, movement, assembly etc. It’s just a state capitalist regime at its best/worst.
The government has been trying to re-orientate the economy towards tourism to bring in essential foreign currency. This means that goods are produced solely to be consumed by tourists are the Cuban workers are denied these. The wages system still exists there and there is no legal right to strike, ever union offical has to be vetted and passed by the state. The workers can't do that! You can be arrested without trail in Cuba and there are numerous laws to stop and harrass free speech and alterative political parties. So much for freedom and democracy.

Workers Revolution wrote:

Oh please. Do you actually have any source for your claims? You are as bad as right-wingers who go on about how Castro is an 'oppressor' or whatever. Are you aware of all the good things Castro has done for Cuba? Compare Cuba before the 1959 Revolution to what it was afterward.

Cuba was, and is socialist. Why would it not be? The working class seized power from Batista and his cronies which were backed by the United States. People have free speech in Cuba, and labour unions do exist. And "you can be arrested without trial in Cuba"? Let's hear some proof to back up your claims.

Yami wrote:

Say, I can play this game too! Aren't you aware of all the good things that the conservative party/republican party has done? Compare the UK before 1959 to what is was afterward.

Yami wrote:

Cuba, never ever was socialist. The working class sezied power for Castro and his cronies which were backed by the USSR.
There is not free speech in Cuba.

Yami wrote:

Article 144(17) of the criminal code prohibits disrespect to authority; Articles 200–201 preventing the spread and cause of panic and disorder have been used to imprison people publicly voicing criticisms; Article 103 prohibits 'enemy propaganda' which is interpreted as anyone inciting criticism of the Cuban system and its international allies; Article 203 criminalises disrespect to the flag and symbols of the regime; Article 115 prevents the dissemination of 'false news against international peace'; and the piece de résistance is articles 72–74 which forbid anything 'dangerous', which can be anything the police and courts decide are so.

Yami wrote:

Cuba, never ever was socialist. The working class sezied power for Castro and his cronies which were backed by the USSR.

Yami wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_cuba
If this is freedom and socialism then call me a cab. Cuba is a byzantine dictatorship which is on its way out. When the regime falls I’m heading to South beach for the biggest party its ever seen.
I’d rather have Thatcher than Castro. At least we could vote her out and despite all her moans about the trade unions and anti-trade union laws wages, in real terms, were higher when she left office. Thatcher also spent more money than anybody else on the NHS. Oh and Thatcher also fought & won war over the Falklands islands and as result of that victory a fascist dictator was ousted from office. Result!

Yami wrote:

If this is freedom and socialism then call me a cab. Cuba is a byzantine dictatorship which is on its way out. When the regime falls I’m heading to South beach for the biggest party its ever seen.
I’d rather have Thatcher than Castro. At least we could vote her out and despite all her moans about the trade unions and anti-trade union laws wages, in real terms, were higher when she left office. Thatcher also spent more money than anybody else on the NHS. Oh and Thatcher also fought & won war over the Falklands islands and as result of that victory a fascist dictator was ousted from office. Result!

Yami wrote:

Funny that the exodus is one way...from Cuba to the US, but never the other way!

If Cuba is such a great place to live why are people prevented from leaving? Why do Cubans risk life and limb to escape this paradise?

Yami wrote:

Yes, I would rather live under Thatcher or Reagan than under Castro as at least I can call them c**ts without fear of arrest, at least I can vote against them in a free election with a secret ballot. You cannot do that in Cuba.
Yeah, their healthcare is impressive but in prison, the food, the electricity, the clothes, the water, the books, the films and the rent is free!

Yami wrote:

Funny that the exodus is one way...from Cuba to the US, but never the other way!

Quote:

If Cuba is such a great place to live why are people prevented from leaving?

Quote:

Al Szymanski in his Human Rights in the Soviet Union does give a historical overview of the "freedom to emigrate," and notes that it was the development of capitalism in places like Britain which created a surplus population of ex-peasants who were obliged to emigrate elsewhere for work because they could not be maintained at home, where they helped form the reserve army of unemployed. From this grew the "freedom" to emigrate.

He notes that, "There are substantial reasons why 'the right to emigrate', together with the right to publicly express political ideas contrary to the official ideology have historically been the two most generally restricted 'rights'; both directly affect the common economic health and ideological security. Labour - the source of all wealth - is a vital national resource. If a substantial portion of a country's population, or a substantial proportion of those with specific vital skills, were to leave a country, its overall economic situation would be substantially weakened. Since the purpose of any state is to advance the welfare of that class which controls the wealth of any country, it thus follows logically that no state will allow the exit of any substantial portion of its population, unless the economic and political costs of maintaining it within the national boundaries exceed the costs of allowing to leave." (pp. 23-24.)

He notes that the most important rights are those within the country itself: right to a job, right to national equality, etc. The "right to emigration" is not only a concept contained within capitalist ideology, but is also cynically used by its ideologists, for whom emigration from their own countries, as centers of imperialism, is of no consequence, though they have (and continue to) imposed travel restrictions on various countries.