Why is the Cuban Gov. against Ravsberg and his Blog?

28 thoughts on “Why is the Cuban Gov. against Ravsberg and his Blog?”

• Repatriado amigo mio,
  I appreciate and understand your points of view (and your diplomatic response!).
  I know a lot of Cubans who would agree with you and many who don’t.
  Whatever path Cuba takes, it will not be for me to decide. And as I have said, I wish you luck and wish for a peaceful way forward.
  Respeto a tu Abuelo. Que no tire a nadie !!!!!
  N.

• My opinion repatriado is quite simple. I am in favour of Cubans having the opportunity to decide their own future rather than being controlled by dictatorship.
  Nick repeats time and time again that my views are simply the division between good and evil. That is because he is endeavoring to paint me into a corner. It doesn’t work, because as a believer in freedom and democracy I respect the views of others and as I have said previously, I have friends of different democratic persuasions.
  However, where Nick is correct is that I view communism as evil 19th century antiquated thinking. I have a degree of contempt for those who insidiously support the repression of others under communist dictatorship whilst posing as being equitable and balanced in their view.
  I have the good fortune to be married to a wonderful Cuban, and as you know, my home is in Cuba.
  But, as I have previously commented, every time I am with my beautiful God-daughter aged seven which is daily when I am in Cuba, I pray that she may within her life have the freedoms that I have known as one born in a capitalist country.
  To quote yet again from the introduction of my own book:

  “The author believes that another Cuban revolution was almost inevitable and necessary during the 1950’s in Cuba which was then controlled by the Batista dictatorship which had achieved power in a coup and which operated in cahoots with the US Mafia under the leadership of Meyer Lansky. It is his view that had Fidel Castro remained true to his supposedly original views – in 1952 he was a candidate for the Orthodox Party until the election was cancelled by Batista and if he had in 1959 following a period of military rule necessary to establish stable administration, law and order, held open free elections, the Cuba of today would be very different and Fidel Castro like Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela would have earned a similarly honoured place in world history for freeing his people and introducing real democracy. But, Fidel Castro in his craving for control and personal power chose otherwise, he chose communism and dictatorship.”

  Although you repatriado and I differ in our political party view, we share a desire for democracy in Cuba and for the people of Cuba to be able to control their own lives and destiny.
  It is my view that Fidel was being his usual crafty self when he wrote in ‘Granma’ that to him, communism and socialism were the same thing. and then called his communism “socialismo”. The communism of Stalin and the socialism of Keir Hardie are a long way apart. Castro believed in communist dictatorship, Hardie in democratic socialism.
  Nick will pour scorn upon my mentioning figures from the political past (which now includes Fidel) – as he has already done, but that is because he obviously does not recognize that past experiences and knowledge of them are critical factors in political analysis. The world did not arrive yesterday.

• great

• My friend, in that scenario, what you have to do is invite them to ice cream for breakfast

  I don´t believe that man be a liar, a fool or evil, I just believe he is mistaken and with respect I try to put my opinion, if it is accepted we can talk about it, if it is not, we can talk about baseball, or I can listen respectfully, and in my case with great placer, his old histories.
  I don´t think it is wrong to judge, in fact is hard not to judge constantly everything and everybody about many aspects, the problem is when you believe that your judgement is the final one and that you see better or deeper than the rest.

  I know you don´t think that, me neither.

  My grandfather love me, but he is perfectly capable of shooting in my head if he would know how I think about this revolution, he is not a fool, lees a liar and he is very far from evil.

  We come from a very poor family from east Cuba, from the mountains, for him revolution is everything.

  Reading you and reading Carlyle I have come to a conclusion, right now I support 100% Carlyle point of view, this oppressive system is immoral, damaging and bad for Cubans, it has to go in order we can have a chance to improve. Once that happens, I think the policies to carry on that I will support are more close to your socialist point of view that to Carlyle´s.

  I am pro empowering people removing power from governments, but I am also very pro social policies looking for equality and policies that support people that are in a bad situation so they have lack of possibilities to contest in a laissez faire environment, I believe government has an important social role as a guardian, but not as an active part of people lifes.

  I would like to know Carlyle’s opinion about it

• Repatriado,
  I think we have to respect the fact that we agree on some things and disagree on others.
  I am in someone’s house eating the food they are insisting that I share and they tell me that they don’t have a lot, but before the revolution they had nothing…..
  Repatriado, what do you want me to do in this scenario?
  I may not agree with everything this man says but I am not going to call him a liar or a fool or an evil man in front of his wife and children……
  You can ask me to do anything and I would do my best.
  But please don’t ask me to go to your country, get to know it, make friends, listen to your people and then sit here and pass judgement from on high.
  Please don’t ask me to divide all the many different Cuban people I know into categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
  Out of respect, I would never do that.

• Nick, I haven’t leave Havana for many years now, but for what tell me the many immigrants that here live in horrible and miserable conditions, in provinces the situation is worse than in the Capital.

  Undoubtedly there are terribly worse and misery places that Cuba, but in Cuba there is misery and there is hunger. I live in a marginal neighborhood and I see the situations of people and they are extreme, I see adults that don’t have dinner so that their children can, I see children with broken shoes in the school, playing barefoot in the street, among the mountains of garbage and waters sewers that surround my house.

  I don’t want to put an end to the socialism, I want socialism, but not the socialism of Marx or Lenin, I want that of Olof Palmer and the socialdemocracy, that of the British Laborism, I want a socialism in a democratic regime because I think that only in democracy you can conjugate the constant economic and social improvements.

  In the world there are many injustices and terrible human situations, but this capitalist world is infinitely better to the world of just 200 years ago, yes, there are people’s suffering and dying from hunger or because perfectly curable illnesses, that is horrible and it is necessary to change it, but they are many less, proportionally speaking that what there was before the capitalism.

  I believe that the capitalism already gave what had of good, but the liberalism not yet has given it and we need an ethical and humanist liberalism, something that only can be obtained in a democracy with a capitalist economy.

  do you imagine a communist world?

  It would be a grey world, the science would advance with a lot of bigger slowness, we would live much less and much worse, in fact there would live less people.

  On FR, I don’t know if he is a bad person, what I say is that his work is evil, counteractive.

  FR understands that the option of Cuba outside of the Castrism would be to become Dominican Republic or Nicaragua, I believe that Cuba has had an origin very different to those nations and that it had an equally different destination, frustrated by Fidel, not for Batista. Batista perverted the Cuban democracy, but it was salvageable, Fidel put an end to the Cuban democracy, and to the economy and to the human values.

  You say to agree on changes, decentralize economy, more civil freedoms and more democracy, that is exactly what I request, because if those structural changes are made we will no longer be in the Castrism.

  It is not a gradualist problem, for little real economic freedom that they allow, few civil rights that allow and low democracy level that allow, that which includes more party beside the PCC, already that is not Castrism, exactly what I want.

  In Cuba there has never been an extreme rightwing, it is difficult to be of extreme rightwing in the tropical heat, but if you define extreme right you will see that the PCC seems much more a conservative party that one progressive.

  It is sad what is passing in Poland and Hungary, it is difficult to live between Europe and Russia, their citizens lived too much time under the Soviet yoke and too much time under the canopy of the Vatican, but, I have faith in that that fever of extreme rightwings is a fleeting virus.

  I agree there is less security than in Cuba in many democratic countries, undoubtedly is difficult to know how much security there is in Cuba because there is not real press, but it is bigger than many other surely, but it is smaller than other countries where the democracy works better than in Latin America, as Canada, USA, Europe, Australia and some Asian countries.

  Therefore the Cuban security is based on the authoritarian control, almost military control of the population, not in the responsibility.

  I coincide with you in many things, but the most important point for my is the dividing line that Carlyle marks, he calls it socialism or communism, I call it Castrism and it has to disappear, not to be modified.

• I can only inform you yet again that I am not defending anything.
  Your George W Bush-style ‘with us or against us’ rhetoric is tired and listless.
  If you wish to see the world through that kind of prism…..
  Then just carry on and the very best of luck to you.

• I have a lot of dear friends in Cuba. I know a lot of people there from all walks of life. The people I know there have a lot of differing opinions stemming from a lot of different reasons and perspectives. I don’t sit around dividing the people I know or their viewpoints into your narrow and simplistic categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
  It would be unreasonable of me to do that.
  As I get older I get less inclined to be unreasonable………..

• Not true. I proudly claim the “good” mantle you have chosen to lay at the feet of those who hate dictatorships and look forward to a free a democratic Cuba. Ravsberg, albeit many times in Salomonic (splitting the baby) way, was able to take a middle ground in most of his comments. He was never harshly criticized like Elio Delgado Legon is and deservedly so. Fernando is an original thinker. Elio is a Castro mouthpiece. Ravsberg’s posts are genuinely missed.

• For Cuba, there can be no positive solution until the Communist regime rots from within. You say that the Russian support for the active communist operators in the British Trade Unions is from “a bygone age” you fail to note that it was at the same time that Russia was also supplying support to the Castros with KGB involvement. Sadly they do not belong to the “bygone age” whereas Britain has managed to stave off the Russian funded communist endeavors to undermine and eventually destroy the economy.

• I note that in your response to repatriado you again defend the Cuban communist regime by writing that things are even worse elsewhere. Also that you endeavor to blame the “capitalist-run world”. So presumably you blame capitalism for the starvation in North Korea – recognized by the UN. I also noted with interest your comment that: “You could describe certain historical figures as ‘evil’ and I would not comment.” That is par for the course Nick – you have an apparent ambiguity about recognizing the evil of communism or dictatorship by the left.

• Repatriado,
  I have been very lucky to have travelled from one end of your country to the other. I have worked there and studied there. I treat people with respect and find that I am respected in return. I have been knocked out by the generosity of people there. I feel almost as ‘at home’ in your country as I do in my own.
  I do not see misery there. I would strongly disagree with you when you mention misery and hunger. I would humbly suggest that this does a disservice to the significant portion of humanity who suffer real misery and hunger. Over 150 million children in this world under the age of five suffer from the devestating effects of malnutrition. Some people in Cuba criticise the libreta. If the parents of these 150 million had access to a similar form of libreta, their children would not be suffering. These children have the misfortune to be at the very bottom of the barrel in the capitalist-run world.

  You could describe certain historical figures or actions as ‘evil’ and I would not comment. But Fernando Ravsberg and his artcles??
  Even if you disagree with him, evil is a very strong word.

  I would always be suspicious of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of soverign nations. They do not always do this to help, they mainly do it for their own self-interest. I would warn U.S. citizens to be suspicious of Russia’s meddling in the USA for exactly the same reason.

  There are other ways in which I would disagree with you Repatriado. In the capitalist countries of Latin America and Carribean region most people generally have far less security than Cubans do. A friend of mine who had a nice ‘pincha’ working in a tourist bar in Havana was always complaining about life in Cuba. Then he went to the Dominican Republic. He didn’t stay too long. He said he was too scared to go out of his door after dark due to the lack of security and the potential for street violence and robbery. He also lost a lot of weight there. He returned to Cuba and doesn’t complain quite so much these days!

  Although there are points of disagreement, I respect your opinions. You are able to put across your views without abusing the views of others. And thankfully there are aspects of what you say that I completely agree with. This is positive and I like to emphasise the positive.
  I would be in favour of more civil freedom, less centralisation, more democracy. As I said in my previous comment I find the present Cuban system to be too dysfunctional to continue in the same way. I would wish for the future to be better and not worse.
  Estonia would indeed be an example preferable to that of Yugoslavia.
  Hungary and Poland are examples to avoid as very right wing politicians in these countries are now seeking to politicize the judiciary and there is talk of a new very right-wing ‘axis’ forming some kind of global collaboration with the trump regime. Very worrying.

  Whether Cuba can reform within a Socialist framework or not is not up to me.
  It may take a totally different path.
  Whatever happens, I wish good luck and wish for no return of blood on the streets of Havana.

• I would strongly oppose Russia’s attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign countries against their will, be they historical or current. I would likewise condemn the USA for doing the very same.
  Mr MacD, you show yourself once again to be very agile when it comes to name dropping. As long as the names are from a certain bygone era.
  Your accusations toward me are tired and listless.
  You do not seem to have the capacity to address the current issues raised or engage in any rational debate. You are safer to stay within the confines of your small comfort zone – sitting there dividing the world into ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’.
  Your world is forever binary.
  The wooden rhetoric you use can only ever form a small contribution to the continuation of the same old problems. I’m afraid that there seems little potential for your type of viewpoints ever being part of any positive solution.

• Dear Nick,

  1 I concur with you in that the intents of introducing democracy have been a colonialist pretext, the same as before it was the racial and religious superiority. The human beings are not my favourite animals, you can bet on it.

  Regrettably, even democratic countries are susceptible of being driven by their leaders to the biggest cruelties, Iraq, Viet Nam, Algeria, South Africa.

  Even democratic countries have enormous deficits of democracy and their systems are very far from the justice, equality and freedom that I would want.

  But even so, the democratic countries are the countries where better you live, they are the countries where more security, freedom and justice are, and all that is thanks to the advances they have done in their search for the democracy.

  Therefore the democracy, like system, is up to now better than any other system rehearsed by the humanity.

  If the democracy has not extended for all the countries of the world, it is not because it is incompatible with some cultures, the democracy is compatible with all the cultures, but, in those countries there are some national elites that prefer to exacerbate the religious, nationalist, cultural fanaticisms because this way they maintain their positions, and on top of that, those local elites have the better allies in democratic governments. Saudi Arabia, China, Viet Nam, Philippine, Cuba.

  2 I am enemy of the violent and sudden changes, if you read my article about Diaz Canel you will have seen it, I don’t request a sudden change, what I want is the beginning of a gradual but clear process of dismounts of the totalitarian and authoritarian regime toward a democracy, a real change where the objective is a more democratic and much less centralized country, a place where the civil freedoms be more respected.

  I don’t fear that Cuba be a new Yugoslavia, on the contrary, I see in Cuba the possibility to be an Estonia.

  3 the articles of FR are evil, from my point of view, because they plead for improvements inside the dictatorship, therefore they pleads for more dictatorship, a dictatorship with better service of transportation and more food, but that is still a dictatorship and it is untenable and deeply unfair.

  All the changes in Cuba, to be real, must start in the recognition of the absolute failure of a system, the recognition of that that system was created with the diabolic purpose of to maintain a dictator in power for more than 50 years.

  4 I only accept the idea that the revolutionaries took Cuba from USA them if you accept the idea that next they gave it to the USSR.

  5 I accept any interference of any country in the Cuban situation, it is a responsibility of the Cubans to oversee with intelligence that interference.

  Nick, there is a dictatorship in Cuba, there is an oppressive and repressive system, there is misery, hunger, discourages and almost total absence of hope of improvements for the future, any help that any country gives us should be welcome, it doesn’t matter with what intension they helps us, like I said, we will be who will have to be responsible for administering that help.

• repatriado, there is a difference between recognizing a persons talents, abilities and views, and necessarily agreeing with them. I have in the past disagreed with views expressed by Mr. Ravsberg, but I respect his right to freedom of expression. It appears that even Nick (and perhaps his shadow Dani) not only recognize Mr. Ravsberg’s talents, but agree with his views when they are well to the left.
  But repatriado, just take a moment to re-read Nick’s contribution and have a good laugh! I had one when I read:
  “I would certainly not suggest that I hold the keys to any over-arching truth.”
  Now that’s certainly correct!

• Yet again, support for the communist dictatorship. You know perfectly well Nick and history supports it, that communism never steps aside to permit any alternative. Either you are too young to remember or alternatively you choose not to recall a foreign country trying to fund agitation in order to pursue communist dogma within the UK. All in pursuit of World domination with the hammer and Sickle flying over every capital city.
  Let me either remind you – or increase your knowledge of the activities to which I refer.
  There was the General Secretary of the Association of Scientific Workers, Mr. John Dutton.
  Mr. Les Cannon of the Electrical Trades Union.
  Mr. Jack Hendy of the Electrical Power Workers.
  Mr. Jack Mahon London District Secretary of the Communist Party.
  Mr. Foulkes the Communist president of the Electrical Trades Union.
  All funded by the USSR which most certainly had a left wing dogma and “a bad reputation.”
  It just so happens Nick that I have been involved in negotiations with a British trade union. The President of that Union was a genuine “Labour man” for whom I had much respect. But he had to fight the communists whom he detested and we had many discussions over a beer after formal meetings.
  If you endeavor Nick, you will recall me previous comments about having friends who are democratic socialists. None show the admiration that you do for communism – I wonder why?

• Hi Repatriado,
  It is always fascinating to engage in these debates with you.
  Many unspeakable crimes have been committed by one group of people against another group of people. The historical pretext for these sins against humanity has often been presumed racial or religious superiority. My British forebears were at fault in this way.
  As were the Spanish, Portuguese etc…..
  More recently similar atrocities have been committed whereby the pretext is ‘the introduction of democracy’……
  I am all in favour of a democratic show of hands or a vote on issues, but when I turn on the tv and watch the carnage committed by those from the richest parts of the world ‘introducing democracy’ to those from the poorer parts of the world, I do find that moral relativism does indeed, provide some perspective and understanding.
  I fully understand your subtle points regarding truth and objectivity. And to an extent I would agree.
  I would disagree regarding FR’s articles. I do not find his writings to be evil in any way.
  In fact I normally find his points of view to be positive, optimistic and forward looking.

  You clearly do not wish for any positive change within the current Cuban system (as occurred in Vietnam for example). I understand, but do not agree with, that point of view. I would be very concerned about a sudden change to a different type of system. And I know many, many Cubans who have the same concerns.
  A sudden change can mean a lot of blood on the streets. When USSR/Russia underwent a sudden dramatic change, Moscow went from being relatively safe to being the murder capital of the world as gangsters and high ranking officials took sides, made pacts, broke pacts and generally blew each other’s brains out. Many innocent civilians were also victims of the bloodshed.
  What happened in Yugoslavia was full scale war and genocide.
  Many, many Cubans are concerned about sudden dramatic change.
  I definitely have a respect historically for the way that Cuban Revolutionaries took their country away from the cruel clutches of US politicians and mafiosos, but I certainly do not wish for a never-ending continuation of this same system of government as it clearly has significant dysfunctional aspects. In my own opinion as an outsider who has spent a significant amount of time in Cuba over the last quarter of a century, serious changes/reforms would be good.
  But I do also share those concerns regarding potentially lethal sudden changes. (I would again point out to you the wide differences in outlook between Havana and provincial Cuba where the majority of Cubans live).

  Any such reforms should come from within Cuba. I would always strongly disagree with any foreign countries with right wing dogma and bad reputations trying to either fund agitation within Cuba or attempting to dictate any change. Their record of ‘introducing democracy’ to the needy is a mess. The dead don’t get to vote on anything. Not even in the afterlife as from what I hear, both heaven and hell seem largely authoritarian.

• How can you be so sure that FR is being objective? It seems to me that what you call objective is the thought line that coincides with yours, and that is sample that you consider yourself as objective, but that automatically defines those that don’t think like you as subjective.

  My debate in this case is against the monopoly of the objectivity that resembles the monopoly of the truth.

  I believe there is certainty and false things, good and bad things, I find the moral relativism weak and not useful thought, I even defend that there are positive values, such as democracy and tolerance, applicable in any culture or nationality.

  But I also believe that the truth, the objective thing, is unreachable outside of the mathematical one, the physics and the chemistry. The best we can aspire is to approach, from our own experiences, to an interpretation of the reality.

  Therefore, when from your position you criticize other as extremist, what you actually mean is that my opinion is very far from yours, but, won’t yours be the more far from the reality?

  By the way, I consider you a very rational and tolerant person, my two favourite characteristics.

  I believe that FR is deeply mistaken in its bottom analysis on the Cuban question, for example, FR considers that the Cuban government is legitimate, he considers that the great problem is the application of the Castro system, not the system itself.

  I consider that the Cuban government is a dictatorship and therefore it is illegitimate, I believe that there is not possible reformation for this dictatorship and mainly I believe that the Castro system is disastrous and it should be substituted, not improved.

  I believe that the blog, the vision of FR about Cuba is very damaging, it rises the false image, false image from my point of view, that there is improvement inside the Castro system.

  FR admires and defends caudillismo, FR never criticizes the Castro Brothers, FR do criticizes the small bureaucrats and for me that is very shameless.

  For me what FR does is evil, there is not a gray area here, do that make me more or less objective?

  Other by the way, I defend the right of FR to write, to talk or to say whatever he wants because he is not using or promoting violence.

• Hi Repatriado,
  So do you think F Ravsberg’s objectivity is a problem?
  The Cuban state clearly thinks his objectivity is a bit of a problem and going by previous comments on his articles, so do some of the ‘good vs evil brigade’ on here.
  I would certainly not suggest that I hold the keys to any over-arching truth.
  It would not be me who sits down and simplistically divides our complex humanity into groupings of good and evil.
  For me it is more of a case of cause and effect rather than good vs evil.

• my advice is to go to the spanish version of HT and read some opinions of Cubans about Fernando Rasverg

• Dani and Nick, aren´t you doing the same that you accused others?, I mean, you both says there is a ‘good vs evil’ brigade here in HT, but it seems to me that those people also think they are being objective, as objective as you both think you are, so, when you use the reference of objectivity to critic others people thoughts, how do you know what is objective?

  Objective for you maybe not have the same substantial than for me, so this idea of being objective is so relative than I think it is not a valid argument, just only perhaps for a few extremist opinions that goes against all logic and humanity, but the interpretations of political reality is so wide that to claim that you are the one with the objective point of view is like to claim you are the one with the real truth.

  Do you believe you are the one with the real truth?

  Greetings to both and spread the voice about Osmel, he is a good man.

• You are correct Dani.
  The guy’s objectivity did not go down too well withe the ‘good vs evil’ brigade that contribute comments here.

• Coupled with Osmel Ramirez Alvarez being hauled off to jail, this treatment of Fernando Ravsberg appears to indicate that Diaz-Canel is endeavoring to establish his credentials as a true Castro puppet and that there is a fresh renewal of communist censorship.
  Fidel Castro recorded his view back on August 13, 1968 when he criticized the revolution in Czechoslovakia led by Alexander Dubcek against communist tyranny saying:

  “Certain measures were taken such as the establishment of a bourgeois form of freedom of the press. This means the counterrevolution and the exploiters, the very enemies of socialism, were granted the right to speak and write freely against socialism.”

  Fidel Castro was echoing the view of Dr. Ernesto Guevara de Serna Lynch who said in 1959:

  “We must do away with all newspapers. A revolution cannot be accomplished with freedom of the press.”

  In their enthusiasm to destroy all things “bourgeois”, Fidel Castro appointed Dr. Guevara de Serna Lynch with effect from January 2nd, to June 12th, 1959 as Commander of the Cabana Fortress in Havana with instruction to exact “revolutionary justice” against those decreed to be traitors, informants or war criminals. In his enthusiasm for blood-letting, Guevara had some 357 Cubans executed. In short, he led the purge. Later executions by the Castro regime brought the total executions recorded in the archives to 3,615 with an additional 1,253 extra judicial killings being attributed to the Castro regime. Such actions were modeled upon the purges carried out by the much admired Stalin.
  As in recent times, the Castro regime has abandoned executions, current dissenters are allowed to live and incarcerated.

• Yes, pity he was abused and called all kind of names by your mob on these pages.

• Circles,
  That’s a shame.
  His viewpoints have the key advantage of objectivity which those of other contributors, to an extent, sometimes seem to lack.

• The arrangement for Havana Times translating his articles ended.

• Mr Ravsberg’s excellent and objective articles used to appear in Havana Times.
  Is there a reason why they do not seem to anymore?

• Fernando Ravsberg is an internationally respected professional journalist with a history of recording the truth. That in itself makes him unacceptable to the Castro based Cuban communist regime. That regime has for fifty nine long weary years, endeavored to prevent Cubans from receiving information about the reality of alternative free democratic political systems or indeed about the free world in general, The Cuban people have been kept in a cocoon woven from lies and misinformation. There is only one answer in Cuba for those who seek a quiet life:

  Don’t challenge the system, accept it, stay mute and exist.
  No desafies al sistema, aceptalo, quedate mudo y existe.

  Es Cuba hoy!

Comments are closed.