Rebuilding Cubans as Individuals
By Alejandro Armengol*
HAVANA TIMES — Even though studies and conferences about the rebuilding of a post-Castro Cuba abound, this transformation has never been analyzed in any depth from the point of view of the individual.
Urgently taking on the study about the means that will allow Cubans to change and become individuals capable of facing the challenges and benefits of a democratic State and civil society is as pressing a task as debating over the economic and political bases that are to sustain the Cuban nation of the future.
Impelling such a process from within Cuba’s current regime is impossible. Though efforts to establish the foundations of a civil society in Cuba under the current situation are commendable, these efforts are for the most part limited if not utopian. No civil society could be built in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or the communist Soviet Union. That came later.
The comparison may seem disproportionate for some – in part, if one considers the war these European nations experienced, or the subsequent Cold War faced by the USSR, it is – but, when one focuses on the characteristics of a totalitarian system, most differences tend to vanish. To speak of establishing civil structures, groups and institutions that are truly separate from the State – and not of necessity pitted against the government – in today’s Cuba is as nonsensical as suggesting this be tried in North Korea.
This, however, does not stand in the way of studying the slow and inevitable evolution towards this end, a process which, in Cuba’s case, is characterized by the development of an increasingly porous border between the island and its counterpart, Miami.
Here, in contrast to North and South Korea, we cannot speak of a nation divided into two States. We are faced, rather, with an ever-more deteriorated country and a refuge established in a republic that is at once similar and different (ultimately, Cuban émigrés living in Miami abide by US laws).
Beyond the superficial similarity caught sight in the fact that South Korea directly and indirectly offers North Koreans economic aid so that they will be less hungry and miserable, Cubans living on the island and in the United States have become closer to one another in the course of years and these ties are transcending ideological and political differences (whose extremes are becoming more and more obsolete at both ends) every day.
In this sense, attempts in Miami at establishing the bases for a “future Cuba”, let alone a government for tomorrow’s Cuba, are as absurd as the pretext of the “besieged fortress” one still hears at Havana’s Revolution Square, and, with time, have become mere comical references to an abandoned project.
The New Émigrés
In the course of 55 years, Cubans have evolved into two groups with significant differences and similarities. One group, the majority, has remained in the country. The other has made a new life for itself abroad.
For years, the Cuban government has been repeating that émigrés leave Cuba for economic reasons. This argument has been echoed in Miami. Here, we are also told on a daily basis that those who have arrived in the country in recent years have come in search of a better life and not for ideological reasons. In that always ironic convergence of extremes, a discourse that points to the immigrant who is solely interested in their wellbeing and not in any ideal of freedom begins to take shape on both coasts.
There is some truth to these claims, insofar as there is a growing tendency among the new émigrés to distance themselves from all forms of “politicization” (having grown tired of hearing these kinds of discourses) and to prioritize family values or maintain previous personal ties, and even customs, with which those who arrived before the 1990s were, for the most part, obliged to break off.
There are however differences that remain, even though these are overlooked or deliberately ignored in our daily lives. This could be described simply by saying that Cubans go back to Cuba but never actually return. Those who do – as in the case of the occasional musician – are the exception that turns the event into news.
The most significant difference between Cubans within and without Cuba is that those who have emigrated to the United States or other countries live in countries with capitalist, market economies and democratic governments, while those who have remained in Cuba of their own will or reasons beyond their control are obliged to adapt to the circumstances that prevail in a totalitarian society based on communist tenets (though, in practice, the ideological terminology has evolved and the prevailing system is the facade of a regime whose sole interest is surviving at all costs).
Beyond the possibility of expressing oneself freely – and without facing any repercussions, for the most part – under capitalism and the generalized censorship of a system that continues to call itself socialist, what has the greatest impact upon individuals is the sense that they are not in control of their own lives.
For the time being, leaving the country continues to be the escape valve chosen by those living on the island. Neither the increase in travel and sending of remittances between the two countries nor Cuba’s new migratory laws have put an end to the exodus of Cubans, who leave the country on vessels and other means considered illegal by Havana and other governments (save in such exceptional cases envisaged by the still effective “wet foot / dry foot” policy).
In addition, leaving Cuba is, in most cases, no longer considered an attack on the regime, but rather a family or personal affair.
This tendency to regard the migratory process through the lens of family or personal concerns (and, as such, depoliticitzed), however, serves a political aim.
What the Cuban government is actually after is a twofold benefit: to receive revenue through those who settle abroad and continue to help the relatives they left behind and to widen the social and political blowoff valve. Like Havana, Washington also acts in accordance with its national interests: to maintain social and political stability 90 miles from Cuban coasts, without looking for any additional trouble. Ultimately, that has more weight than any declaration in favor of democracy in Cuba.
For many years, migratory policies have been used as political instruments by both the United States and Cuba, and this has not changed. This has benefitted many Cubans, but not without a number of costs.
Over time, Havana and Washington have offered different answers to the phenomenon of Cuban immigrants. They are two very different countries that share a common problem, while thousands of desperate people continue to look for a better life. Of course we should not condemn anyone for wanting to have a better life, particularly if one has done exactly the same.
It is the country of origin that is suffering ever greater damage from the point of view of its future independence, not only political but also social, the danger of disintegration, chaos and violence that looms ever more threateningly over Cuban society.
A Volatile Stage
An extremely volatile situation – which the government has managed to control through repression and promises – has been taking shape in Cuba over recent years. Though repression is generalized, it manifests itself more visibly when applied on dissidents.
The regime is not only capable of keeping dissidents divided – that hasn’t been news for years – but also of ensuring that the small protests and acts of civil disobedience that take place on a daily basis do not acquire larger dimensions. The dissidents still prove incapable of guiding or organizing the nationwide feeling of discontent and the government has not made any significant progress in terms of alleviating the prevailing poverty in the country. In this sense, we can speak of stagnation both within the opposition and government, whose reforms make such slow progress that it could well be said they aren’t moving at all.
All of this increases the chances of a social upheaval. Should such a violent fragmentation of society take place and regardless of its outcome, taking advantage of the chaos and the use of force as a solution to daily problems will likely become a behavioral pattern that will be adopted by part of the island’s population. This behavior will limit or thwart social progress, as is the case in Haiti today. Manipulation would cease to be institutionalized, as is the case now, and would become the work of small groups of thugs, demagogues and politickers.
Should a social upheaval take place – and we must stress that the situation of Cuban society is ever more like a boiler gaining more and more pressure – people will not take to the streets to demand political liberties (the moment for that has passed), but to vent their social and economic frustration.
From the economic point of view, and contrary to what people may suppose, a general worsening of the country’s economic situation need not be the catalyst for these more or less generalized protests. The country’s growing social differences, which become starker every day, are what could light the fuse.
Despite the extreme limitations they face in their efforts (chiefly owed to the vigorous forms of repression applied on them), Cuban dissidents have not only warned of this danger but have done everything possible to avoid reaching such a chaotic situation, after which it would be very difficult to carry out the task of rebuilding Cubans as individuals. The government of the Castro brothers, on the other hand, is intent on leaving only chaos behind following its disappearance.
Every day there are more and more signs that reveal that part of Cuba’s population is willing to carry out violent acts – or is unable to control its passions and base instincts – and that it reacts to the simplest of stimuli. It is that sector of the population that willingly participates in public reprisals against dissidents, in which they are guided and controlled by a group of repressive agents. That is to say, they are not even at the level of professionals of violence: they are mere, circumstantial thugs.
In the more or less immediate future, following the disappearance of the Castros, gang members, extortionists, people who abuse power and even murderers will come out of the ranks of that sector, to meet the demand for delinquents and violent people that the different groups involved in illegal activities (now flourishing on the island) will have.
The rise in criminal activity is not the only danger that lurks ahead of us in connection with these unscrupulous individuals who currently find satisfaction in and take advantage of their participation in repressive activities.
The main problem is the existence of a population accustomed to living under a totalitarian regime that will soon find itself incapable of living in freedom and assuming the responsibilities this entails. Those who deal the blows today will be the maladjusted individuals of tomorrow.
Getting to know how people who have survived in a country in ruins for too long think and act involves exploring a world that is broader than our current political discussions. Studying the conduct of part of the island’s population that will limit or prevent social progress in the future goes beyond the anecdote, the timely chronicle or the report on the island’s most recent shortage. It is of course not an easy task and there are practically no means of carrying out such studies. That, however, should not prevent us from sounding the alarm and continuing to worry about this situation.
(*) Translated by Havana Times with permission from Cubaencuentro.com.
13 thoughts on “Rebuilding Cubans as Individuals”
We are very close to agreement the only remaining difference being that you think that somehow the US proposing a clear alternative could invoke change. How Terry when that economic juggernaut of General Rodriguez and Castro Espin is in control;?
Carlyle, I think it will be… “second verse, same as the first”. The current system is well entrenched. There has to be a prime motivator for the military to give up control and let others run the country based on a new approach. It’s all about money. If a plan can be put together to insure their economic interests will be protected, the possibility for political change would then be greatly enhanced. The two need to be separated from one another. But without a clear alternative promoted and supported by the US government, I don’t see that happening. There will be some that will say the US is already promoting a clear alternative, but as we all know, that aggressive approach has made little difference. My fear is it will continue to be “second verse, same as the first” for the US government too. If so, why should anyone expect anything to change anytime soon?
Thank you Terry for responding to whoever pinched my name!
I was expressing my guess (nobody knows) about what will happen following the demise of the Castro brothers. Raul thinks that he has got it all laid out and arranged, but even supposedly dedicated communists are driven by self-interest and the desire for power, both to control and to pursue their own interests (wealth). Has Raul underestimated the desires of members of his own family, or has he very cleverly (and Raul has plenty of “street smarts”) by building up the financial empire of GAESA under Castro family management ensured that the Political Front of Diaz-Canel, Murillo, Rodriguez et al is but a convenient facade?
We won’t know the answer until both brothers are gone. We still don’t know for example whether Raul will retain his position as Head of the military following relinquishing his post as President in three years time.
It has been known for a long time that one horse can run faster than another – but which one? The differences are crucial!
Carlyle Reid (or MacDuff…that is strange), I have no quarrel with anything that you wrote…I’m in full agreement. And just so you’re aware, I’m not a Socializmo admirer, only that I feel the revolution was necessary at the time, but I want change for Cuba now too just as much as anybody else. I just differ greatly and take exception to the tactics that continue to thwart meaningful progress. Without dialogue and coordinated change on both sides being first entertained, nurtured, negotiated, and sustained, we can expect another 50+ years of more of the same.
A fascinating and thought provoking essay! Of all his crimes, perhaps the worst thing Castro did was to destroy the human individual in Cuba. It will take a generation or more to bring back that endangered species from the brink of extinction.
All Stalinist inspired states – like Cuba – have a state capitalist system. The “excuse” is that the communist regime – elite – runs it for the benefit of the people and that the people have their “say” through the organs controlled by the communist state. In reality the elites son run the economy for their benefit and use the organs of the party to control the people.
But that has become the standard “socialist planned economy”.
In a sense both of you have a point.
But the author makes the best points. It is the Cuban elite that, under the system of socialism, has imposed the system and destroyed the economy. A socialist system – including Chavez new variant – inevitably ends up as a dictatorship with a failing economy if not stopped in time.
Your “enlightened Marxism” has -n to my knowledge – never operated for very long in any place and communal living projects with true democracy have only existed in non-communist countries.
The one example I know of Marxist communed like that are the Catalan anarchist experiments in Catalonia Spain during the Spanish civil war. These were by the way eradicated by the communists when – under Soviet Union direction – they seized full control of the republican side.
Your dilemma is simple: under the socialist system you defend no true “Marxist” communes can exist. In that manner you destroy your own arguments. The kibbutz system in Israel was more “Marxist” in your “definition” than any kholchose of Maoist commune.
John, you are fooling no one. Because socialism around the world has been an abject failure, guys like you want to redefine it. At the very least, you want to put as many miles as possible between what you call Socialism and what the Soviets in United Soviet SOCIALISTS Republic practiced because…well, we know how that turned out. As long as you can keep redefining it you can keep hope alive among anti-capitalists that a future socialists utopia is possible. You even have to reject the Castros version of Socialism in Cuba since it is clear that the economy in Cuba is a failure as well. What you either fail to understand or choose to ignore is that no matter how fast you dance to redefine Socialism as long as your definition rejects private individual ownership rights and the accumulation of wealth in private hands, your version of socialism, like all the others you rejected that preceded it will end up on the ash heap economic theories. Period.
Great….Then you are in agreement with me that the Castro family dictatorship must go! At that time let the Cuban people decide what government they want in place, whatever that may be. But since we are in agreement about the existing government …what will you do with all those Castro speeches?
I Post this with the comforting thought that you will not be replying….phew!
Since the author and the people who commented on his article obviously do not understand that Cuba’s economy is a state CAPITALIST one , I am again reprinting some needed information ….to be studiously ignored in order to maintain the fiction and idiocy that Cuba is a socialist or communist country .
The following is excerpted from a Paul Street article at ZNet .
“Does the misery and collapse of the Soviet Union /bloc really discredit Marxism or other forms of anti-capitalism?
‘One can debate the meaning of the term socialism ‘ Nam Chomsky noted in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, ‘but if it means anything , it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions whether in CAPITALIST ENTERPRISES OR AN ABSOLUTIST STATE.”
Bearing that consideration (true to Marx) in mind and adding in the question of who controls the economic surplus, the U.S. Marxist economist , Richard Wolff reasonably describes the Soviet experiment as a form of STATE CAPITALISM .
Under the Soviet model , “hired workers” produced surpluses that were appropriated and distributed by ….state officials who functioned as employers.
Thus Soviet ( and Cuban and Korean etc ) industry was actually an example of STATE CAPITALISM in its social structure .
By calling itself “socialist” –a description of “Marxist Russia” that U.S. Cold Warriors and business propagandists eagerly embraced for obvious reasons …the Soviet Union prompted the redefinition of socialism to mean state capitalism”
End quote .
In short ..if it’s run from the top..it’s ( totalitarian, the only kind of ) capitalism
If it’s run from the bottom, by the workers , it’s a form of (democratic) socialism .
C’mon guys. This is not hard to understand.
N.B. I will not respond to replies.
The biggest crime of the Castro regime is the destruction of the civil society and moral values in Cuba.
As has happened in many communist societies people have been turning to uncaring individualism, corruption and the promotion of self-interest over the interest of all.
Cubans never stole from neighbors. No they do.
Cubans worked for a living. Now they take a job for the “opportunities” of contraband and corruption they offer.
This is Che’s “new man”.
Thoughtful post. Alejandro only blithely alludes to the death spiral that Castro-style Socialism has thrust upon the Cuban people. The trifecta a nation-killing being the negative demographics, moribund economy and aging leadership has put Cuba on a course towards extinction. Without major systemic changes Cuba faces catastrophic choices of bloody revolution or the bloody suppression of revolution. The Three Stooges-like chorus of Castro sycophants refuse to acknowledge facts like high immigration rates coupled with low birthrates. They choose to ignore the less than 1% growth rate of the economy and the hyper-dependency on Venezuelan oil, Miami remittances, and Canadian tourism. Finally, from the cozy comforts of their capitalist lives, these wannabe socialists pretend that the deaths and/or retirements of the Castros will have no effect on the governance of the regime. With no believable transition plan in place, it is ridiculous to believe that once Fidel and Raul have gone on to that special place in Hell for dictators, that everything will continue on without serious glitches. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the clock is ticking. Cuba will change sooner than most people think.
Don’t understand how the site or the computer gave me a new name, but for anyone in doubt I wrote the above!
An excellent article. I hope that the Socialismo admirers including ‘Dan’, Terry Downey, Mr. Goodrich, rodrigva, Lisa et al read it two or even three times and fully absorb the reality of life in Cuba as reflected in the article.
There is nothing new about the use of thugs by dictators, Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao Tse Tung did it, Pinochet did it and the Castro family regime does it, stamping on those gladioli carried by the brave Ladies in White.
The Castro family regime would be prepared to sell its soul – if it had one – to line the coffers of its empire. There are those who write in these columns who admire such traits – could it be with envy?
It is correct that the Castro brothers care naught for the havoc they have wrought but it would be foolish to think that their intended successors are not equally interested in controlling Cuba and its weary citizens. The question is whether Diaz-Canel, Murillo and Rodriguez will be satisfied to be political figureheads allowing Castro Espin and and General Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas to continue to control 80% of the Cuban economy and continue to line the Castro family coffers. If they don’t allow such control who will the military support?
Only capitalism can release those individual energies which create businesses and with them gainful employment and improved income. Diaz-Canel is a dedicated communist, Murillo as a professional economist has failed to stimulate any form of economic growth with the performance of agriculture in particular being abysmal and Rodriguez is a political front man wearing one of Fidel Castro Ruz’s despised black suits. Where will they stand as relative office boys if the military as I would anticipate support Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas and Alejandro Castro Espin? The military are accustomed to a higher standard of living than most Cubans and GAESA is the paymaster. El poder – the power – will be in the military command and and any interference by the office boys could result in a military takeover and dictatorship. Such a dictatorship would ensure that the Castro family remained in control and remained able to continue to build their “Capitalismo” empire.
Comments are closed.