Concert for Peace without Borders in Havana

A moment missed by U.S. performing artists

Louis Head

Latin American Working Group (LAWG)

September 22, 2009

Louis Head is Director of Cuba Research & Analysis Group in Albuquerque, NM, co-founder of US-Cuba Cultural Exchange and a member of the LAWG board.

"Peace without Borders" video links:

1) http://www.pazsinfronteras.org/

2) http://www.pazsinfronteras.org/video2009/

3) http://www.cipcol.org/?p=572

It seems that a day cannot go by without an article in the MSM declaring that “Cuba is opening up to the world.” There’s a lot of tricky logic going in such statements, and this past Sunday’s Concert for Peace without Borders organized by Colombian pop star Juanes can help us to reflect on this a bit, and also to act to change United States restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba.

Being the music lover that I am, before anything else I have to comment: What a spectacular display it was! Well over a million people – half of Havana’s population according to Cuban press sources – filled the Plaza of the Revolution to see performances by Cuban artists living on the island and abroad whose work most epitomizes their homeland, such as Los Van Van, Orishas, Silvio Rodríguez, Yerba Buena, Carlos Varela and Amaury Pérez. Hats off to saxophonist and music director extraordinaire Juan Manuel Ceruto and an amazing ensemble that accompanied many of the Cubans, as well as their foreign guests such as Luis Aute, Miguel Bosé, Olga Tañón and Danny Rivera, among others. It was great to see Cuban musicianship on display again here in the United States, if only via an online video stream provided by Univisión, something unheard of not so long ago.

Latin America was definitely in the house in Havana. Performers from throughout the continent came together to celebrate their artistry, and to call for peace. The peace message may have seemed a little diffuse when the effort was proposed some months back. Then came the “death tweets” and assorted vitriol spewed against Juanes by a tiny sector of the south Florida Cuban-American community. As the concert approached the singer realized the larger than life role he was taking on. In the end he provided a bridge not only between the artists, but between all Cubans. This concert was above all else about Cuba, framed within the context of Latin America. Today Cuba has stronger relations with Latin America than ever before in its history. Meanwhile, there are more than a few Cuban-Americans who identify with their homeland, their culture and their people, not as fifty year old artifacts but as they exist today in real time. The Concert for Peace without Borders added big exclamation points to these realities. For American observers and no doubt many of the artists and of those in attendance, the five hour festival begged the question as to the whereabouts of performing artists from the United States.

At the risk of simplistic treatment, Cuba and the United States have a long and rich history of collaboration when it comes to music. Such was the case from the mid-19th century up until the early 1960s. During Jimmy Carter’s presidency in the late 1970s, musical collaboration in the form of Havana Jam and other projects took advantage of an opening and appeared to presage normalization of relations. Reagan all but shut the door on that hopeful period. The “People to People” era of Bill Clinton made the annual Havana International Jazz Festival part of the circuit for many U.S. musicians, and efforts such as 1999’s Music Bridges – a concept not unlike what Juanes brought us on Sunday – again raised expectations as travel to Cuba for Americans began to take on an air of normalcy for some. Then came George Bush, who by 2005 had implemented a policy characterized by what State Department officials termed “unprecedented disengagement” with Cuba. Another time of hope and high expectations came to an abrupt end.

In spite of the rhetoric and actions of the Bush Administration, that same year Cuba attempted to pierce the wall. Following hurricane Katrina and the ensuing flood that devastated New Orleans, Cuba dedicated the 2005 Havana Jazz Festival to the music of New Orleans and invited performers from that cradle of North American culture to participate. Bush Administration officials made it clear that no one would be authorized to perform there. This mirrored the Bush refusal to even acknowledge Cuba’s offer to send hundreds of medical professionals to the Gulf Coast to assist with disaster relief efforts, an offer made even prior to Katrina making landfall.

In 2007, Cuba’s prima ballerina Alicia Alonso called on the North American artistic and cultural community to work with their counterparts in Cuba so that “you are not prevented from coming to our Island to share your knowledge and values; so that a song, a book, a scientific study or a choreographic work are not considered, in an irrational way, as a crime.

When thousands of us here relayed that message to the Bush Administration, the response was complete silence. The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps towards changing the situation. The most significant by far has been a blanket authorization to Cuban-Americans to travel to their homeland as often as they want, and to send to their families as much money as they may. There were many Cuban-Americans in the audience at Sunday’s concert, and there were a few Cuban-Americans on stage performing.

But this does nothing for millions of Americans who have expressed the desire to travel to Cuba, if only they could do so without fear of punishment and harassment. This includes any number of musicians who would have been likely candidates to perform on Sunday and to share in the celebration with their brothers and sisters from Cuba, Latin America and elsewhere.

photo: From left, Puerto Rico's Danny Rivera, Juan Formell, director of the musical group Los Van Van, Cuba's Amaury Pérez, Colombia's Juanes, Spain's Miguel Bosé and Víctor Manuel, and Venezuelan singer Cucu Diamantes
Photograph: Javier Galeano/AP

Cuba has been open to the United States for many years. The United States meanwhile refuses to allow its own citizens to visit Cuba except under the most limited circumstances. As author Ned Sublette states, “the embargo of Cuba is an embargo against us.”

And it is up to us to change this.

Anyone who was moved by what they saw taking place at the Concert for Peace without Borders should be so moved to support the pending “Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act” – HR 874 in the House and its counterpart S 428 in the Senate – which are due to be considered by Congress this Fall. Take a moment on September 30 and join other Americans who will be contacting their elected officials that day. Ask them if they are supporting these critical bills, and if they are not, tell them why you believe that it is important that they do. Let us be inspired by the example of the Concert for Peace to take our own steps towards ending our own isolation from our island neighbor.

Cuba Undertakes Reforms in Midst of Economic Crisis

Roger Burbach
Global ALternatives
September 20, 2009

Roger Burbach is the author of “The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice,” and the Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas based in Berkeley, CA. He is working on a new book with Gregory Wilpert, “The Renaissance of Socialism in Latin America.”

Carlos picks me up with his dated Soviet-made Lada at the Jose Marti International Airport on a hot sweltering day in Havana. It’s been eight months since I’ve seen him, last January to be precise, when I came to the island on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. “How’s it been?” I ask him as we begin the 20 minute drive to central Havana. With a scowl, he replies: “Not so good, nothing seems to get easier.” He goes on to say that foodstuffs are as difficult as ever to come by, necessitating long waits in line for rationed commodities.

I am not surprised, as I had been reading in the international press that Cuba has been compelled to curtail its food imports. Hit by the global economic crisis, spending by tourists dropped off while the price of nickel, Cuba’s main mineral export, fell by more than half. This meant that Cuba has no choice but to cut agricultural imports from its main supplier, the United States. Credit purchases are not an option, as the U.S. legislation in 2000, opening up agricultural sales to Cuba, requires immediate payment in hard currency.

To add to its woes, devastating hurricanes hit Cuba in 2008, decimating some of the country’s sugar plantations, as well as its production of vegetables and staple foods. The only bright light in the midst of this food crisis is the implementation of reforms in the agricultural sector under Raul Castro, who became acting president in July 2006. He officially assumed the presidency from his brother Fidel after a vote by the Cuban National Assembly in February 2008.

I am particularly interested in knowing how the distribution of 690,000 hectares of idle lands to 82,000 rural families, in process when I left Cuba in January, has affected the domestic supply of fresh produce. On my second day, I go to one of the open markets in Havana where I talk to Margarita, who is selling undersized tomatoes. She says they come from her father’s new farm. “We started cultivating tomatoes, as well as other vegetables,” she says. “We even hired workers, which is now allowed. But then, as the crops began to mature, we got very little water from the state-owned irrigation system.” Fearing the worst, I ask her if the state is discriminating against the new producers. “No” she says, “the wells and the irrigation system simply didn’t have any gas for the pumps.”

Later in the day, I meet with Armando Nova, an agricultural economist at the Center for the Study of the Cuban Economy. I had also talked with him in January and he had then been optimistic about the coming year. I ask him what’s gone wrong and he says, “We’re caught between the effects of the global economic crisis and the difficulties of implementing the reforms.” He goes on to say that there has actually been an increase in fresh produce since the beginning of the year, but it is hardly noticeable in the markets because of the increased demand, a result of the drop in international imports.

As to the economic reforms, Nova says: “The top leadership around Raul is committed to a fundamental shake up of the economy, but change is slow because of bureaucratic obstacles.” The very process of distributing idle lands requires 13 steps of paper work submitted to different agencies. And while the government is committed to providing the new farmers with the inputs needed to start up production, many of them are not delivered because they are simply not available due to the economic crisis.

Nova’s view that reforms are inevitable is reinforced in a special report on the economy released by Inter Press Service (IPS), which is affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Relations: “There is an ever broadening consensus about the necessity of a profound transformation of the Cuban economic model. … It is recognized that the future strategy should include non-state forms of property — not only in agriculture, but also in manufacturing and services.” The publication asserts, “Fifty years of socialism in Cuba have to be re-evaluated,” particularly the role of the state and the need to use market mechanisms.

To facilitate this transformation, the government is opening up a 45-day public discussion that includes union centers, schools, universities, community organizations and the base of the Cuban Communist party. According to materials sent out to orientate the discussions, the participants should “not only identify problems, but also suggest solutions…The analysis ought to be objective, sincere, valiant, creative, … carried out in absolute liberty with respect for discrepant opinions.”

According to Orlando Cruz of the Institute of Philosophy, whom I met at a conference in Havana on social movements, “socialism is to be re-founded in Cuba. We have to totally discard the Soviet model that so badly served us.” I ask whether Cuba will now move towards the Chinese model. Like others in Cuba in the party and the government I have asked the same question. He responds somewhat curtly: “We respect the Chinese model, but we have to follow our own process and history. China is a totally different country.” Cruz makes clear that there will be meaningful democratic participation in the new Cuba: “We will not allow the formation of a petit-bourgeoisie to control or distort the process. We want to construct an authentic democratic socialism. It will be deeper and more participatory than that of the social democracies of Europe.”

I first went to Cuba in 1969 and have visited the country every decade since then. There have been many challenging moments in the revolution’s history, and now we are witnessing another one, as the country embarks on an endeavor to free the economy from the shackles of its bureaucracy. The fate of this move depends on the ability of society at the grass roots to exert a greater role in the country’s economic and political institutions. If this effort succeeds, the Cuban revolution will be opening a new path for socialism in the 21st century.

© 2007- 2009 CENSA: Center for the Study of the Americas 2288 Fulton St., Suite 103, Berkeley, CA

Cuba will stay socialist, insists Raul Castro

-- CubaPresident s ays softened US stance will not lead to radical change
Mark Tran
guardian.co.uk
August 2,2009

Raul Castro yesterday acknowledged that the US has softened its rhetoric towards Cuba under Barack Obama but insisted that the island would remain a socialist country even after the death of its revolutionary leaders.

The former defence minister, who succeeded his ailing brother Fidel as president last year, repeated his willingness to discuss all issues with the US but vowed that Cuba would not see fundamental change even after he and his older brother were gone.

"I was elected to defend, maintain and continue perfecting socialism, not destroy it. We are ready to talk about everything, but … not to negotiate our political and social system," Castro told the Cuban national assembly to a long standing ovation.

As for those who thought that Cuba's political system would crumble after "the death of Fidel and all of us", Castro said: "If that's how they think, they are doomed to failure."

Cuba's President Raul Castro (L) talks to United Nations General Assembly Chief Miguel d'Escoto (C) and Ricardo Alarcon, president of the Cuban National Assembly during the May Day parade on Havana's Revolution Square May 1, 2009.

Obama has said he wants to improve relations with Cuba – as with Iran. He has relaxed the 47-year-old US embargo by allowing Cuban-Americans to travel and send money freely to the island 90 miles from Key West, Florida, and has reopened immigration talks with the Cuban government that were suspended by his predecessor, George Bush.

In another conciliatory gesture, the US recently turned off a news ticker on the US interests section in Havana that Cuba viewed as a constant provocation.

But Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have said further improvements depend on Cuba making progress on human rights.

In much of yesterday's speech, Castro gave a bleak overview of the economy, saying the government had cut its budget for the second time this year because of the country's worst financial crisis since the 1990s. Conditions are so bad that the authorities on Friday postponed a Communist party congress that would have been the first of its kind in 12 years.

Castro said the economy, hit by the global financial crisis and three hurricanes last year, grew just 0.8% in the first half of 2009. He said growth of 1.7% was expected for the full year.

As combined economic shocks reduced income from exports and boosted spending on imports of food and other items, Castro held out the prospect of cuts in Cuba's admired healthcare system. Healthcare, along with free education through university, subsidised housing and food provided on a monthly ration system, forms the basis of Cuba's socialist model.

Castro's biggest reform has been the decentralisation of decision-making in agriculture and putting more land in the hands of private farmers to increase food production. He has also pushed for Cubans to be paid based on their production, to create incentives for them to work harder.

In the fight against corruption which he says is choking the Cuban economy, Castro has created a comptroller general's office, with powers to audit and control all government and economic activities.

Response to a Misinformed “Left” Critique of Cuba

Peter Roman, Hobart A. Spalding
Socialism and Democracy
Volume 21, Issue 2
July 2007

Peter Roman is a professor in the Behavioral and Social Sciences Department at Hostos Community College and in the Political Science Program at the City UNiversity of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center. He is also a faculty advisor for the Bildner Center Cuba Program. His book, People's Power: Cuba's Experience with Representative Government was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2003. His article "Electing Cuba's National Assembly Deputies" was published by the European Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies in April, 2007. His article "The Lawmaking Process in Cuba" was published in the journal Socialism and Democracy in 2005. His article "The National Assembly and Political Representation" was published in Cuban Socialism in a New Century, edited by Max Azicri and Elsie Deal and published in 2004 by the University Press of Florida in Gainsville. He is on the board of editors of Socialism and Democracy.

Hobart A. Spalding is a Prof. Emeritus at the Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center, teaching Latin American and Caribbean history. He has published two books including Organized Labor in Latin America (Harper and Row, 1977), a similar number of monographs, and over forty-five articles, mostly in the field of Latin American labor history and relations between workers in the United States and those in Latin America. He has also done research on Argentina since the 1880s, recent Dominican migration to New York, and contemporary Peru. His articles have appeared in diverse journals such as Latin American Research Review, Latin American Perspectives, Science & Society, Caribe Contemporaneo, Monthly Review, International Labor and Working Class History, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Migration, Nueva Sociedad, and NACLA's Report on the Americas, as well as in books and anthologies. His current research concentrates upon the Latin American policy of the AFL-CIO, 1960-1990.

Socialism and Democracy
Journal of the Research Group on Socialism and Democracy
ISSN: 1745-2635 (electronic) 0885-4300 (paper)
Publication Frequency: 3 issues per year
Publisher: Routledge

Recent months have seen a resurgence of articles about Cuba, spurred in no small measure by the transfer of leadership from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul. Opponents both hard and soft line openly discuss “transition” as if it were a given that Cuba will soon become some kind of capitalist society. Those who are preparing to dance in the Orange Bowl as soon as the word arrives that Fidel has passed (the word has come several times already but proved false) even hope to return to the good old days when Cuba was a virtual colony of the United States. Sometimes, lost in all this noise from Cuba's enemies, is the fact that the left attacks Cuba too. Often these two lines of criticism display the same kind of errors, usually based on ignorance or deliberate distortion. One case would be Paul D'Amato, Managing Editor of International Socialist Review, whose article “Cuba: Image and Reality” (ISR, Jan.-Feb. 2007, 38-49) [1] shows no more understanding of the historical process in Cuba than do Bush's firm allies in Miami.

D'Amato's diatribe breaks down into several parts. One, sectarian infighting with the Workers World Party and Sam Marcy; two, a whirlwind tour of the revolutionary process from 1952 to the present; and three, an all-out criticism of present Cuban institutions leading to the conclusion that Cuba is far from a socialist state (pp. 47-48). In the process he becomes so tangled as to say that one should oppose the US blockade of Cuba but that its lifting would lead back to colonization. If this were true, any real friend of Cuba would struggle to uphold the blockade!

Our concern in this short comment is not points one and two above, but rather the final one. In fact, D'Amato is correct in asserting that the Cuban Revolution was not the product of a mass workers' uprising nor even of a mass peasant mobilization. Rather, it was the work of a relatively small cadre around the 26th of July Movement in alliance with other broad sectors of Cuban society (students, some workers and peasants, middle sectors, etc). Be that as it may, and despite its strong impact on how things developed after the fall of Batista in 1959, what is important for us here is the current situation.

D'Amato's article is filled with factual errors and lacks understanding of how Cuba's socialist institutions function. One example of this is his treatment of representative government, called People's Power (Poder Popular). D'Amato misrepresents the nature, purpose, and mechanisms of Cuban democracy and fails to understand how it differs from so-called democratic regimes under capitalism. Cuban sociologist Juan Valdeacutes Paz notes that citizen participation in capitalist countries is largely limited to elections. Under socialism it is defined by participation in government and involvement in government decisions. Whereas the former stresses competition and rivalry, the latter is defined by consensus and consultation.

The description of Cuba as “democracy without substance” (p. 43) fails to take into account that municipal and provincial assemblies, while lacking legislative powers (which fall under the purview of the National Assembly), monitor and control all economic, social, educational, and health-related activities within their territories. They appoint and oversee administrators, elect judges, root out corruption, formulate economic plans and budget proposals, initiate and carry out policies, and act on citizen complaints and suggestions (planteamientos). Through semi-annual meetings with municipal delegates, constituents have direct input into decision-making. Under the socialist theory of mandat impeacuteratif, the municipal delegates must attempt to resolve all planteamientos, with the assistance of groups of delegates at the neighborhood level called the People's Councils (Consejos Populares), which also mobilize constituents and provide opportunities for citizen involvement in resolving problems. [2]

D'Amato also misreads elections and the role of the Cuban Communist Party (Partido Comunista Cubano or PCC). At no level is the PCC involved in candidate selection, since it is not an electoral party. Municipal assembly delegate candidates are selected by constituents in neighborhood meetings in the electoral districts, and by law there must be between two and eight candidates. Candidates for provincial assemblies and the National Assembly are selected, after extensive consultation with constituents, by candidacy commissions led by union leaders and on which, contrary to the ISR article, the PCC has no representation. They are submitted for approval to the municipal assemblies and then elected by the voters. Never (as claimed on p. 43) were only 55% of the National Assembly deputies elected. What D'Amato is probably referring to is that up to 50% of the National Assembly deputies are also elected municipal delegates. When the author complains that voters can vote for all or some of the candidates, he fails to understand what slate voting means, as prevalent in, for example, union elections in the US.[3]

The fact that the National Assembly meets in regular session only twice a year does not make it a “rubber-stamp body” (p. 43). To claim so ignores the varied sources of legislative initiative and the role of National Assembly commissions that meet regularly all year round and where most of the legislative work gets done. The Agrarian Cooperative Law of 2002 provides a typical example of the Cuban legislative process. The initiative behind the law and first draft came from the National Association of Small Farmers (Asociacioacuten Nacional de Agricultores Pequentildeos or ANAP). It then went for revisions to governmental ministries and various professional groups. After several drafts, the National Assembly commission on productive activities led discussions with National Assembly deputies and cooperative farmers in the provinces, which resulted in major changes in the draft law. At no point did President Castro become involved nor did the PCC run the show. Further, the changes gave something to all parties involved; no one imposed upon the other. For example, following demands made by farmers and their National Assembly deputies, revisions were made regarding the legality and ownership of existing housing on cooperative land, state aid, marketing of surplus production, and distribution of profits. [4]

The authors D'Amato cites to support his arguments are, predictably, mostly opponents of the Revolution: Samuel Farber, Marifeli Peacuterez-Stable, and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, to name a few. Obviously he takes their word regarding Cuba without bothering to investigate further. One also wonders if the author has ever been to Cuba to see for himself, always a wise thing to do before pontificating. He also states that since Cuba has not reached what he considers to be socialism (“Socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class or it is nothing,” p. 48), the Revolution cannot be socialist. This kind of idealistic, ahistorical mindset rejects any notion of process. Clearly the Revolution was not born socialist and it has some distance to go before achieving that goal. If one reads the frequent criticism and self-criticism in Ignacio Ramonet's recently published book-length interview with Fidel Castro, [5] it becomes clear that Cuba's socialist development was impeded not only by ferocious US-led imperialist opposition, but also by real mistakes made by real human beings inside Cuba. For example, as Fidel observes to Ramonet, Cuba would not have survived without the Soviet Union, but the adoption of the Soviet model without consideration for local conditions proved to be a major error (see, in particular, chapter 17). The important question, however, is the direction in which things are moving. What differentiates Cuba from other countries claiming the socialist mantle is the process that builds on the history and tradition of the Paris Commune and the 1905 and 1917 Soviets, as well as on the theories of Rousseau, Marx, Engels, and Lenin, with changes marking its own path.

Notes

1. Online at www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image&reality.shtml

2. For case examples of the system at work, see Peter Roman, People's Power: Cuba's Experience with Representative Government (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

3. Peter Roman, “Electing Cuba's National Assembly Deputies,” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 82, April 2007.

4. See Peter Roman, “The Lawmaking Process in Cuba,” S&D #38, July 2005.

5. Biografia cutea a dos voces (New York: Random House; Madrid: Mondadori, 2006) (reviewed in S&D #43, March 2007).

Cuba: Freedom of Expression & Socialism

Ron Ridenourd
Havana Times (www.havanatimes.org)
March 12, 2009

“It is not a question of luxury, an alternative which one can choose or not: worker democracy is a condition sin qua non for the normal unfolding of a socialist economy.”

HAVANA TIMES, March 12 - How much freedom of expression and real (active) power the Cuban working class and the population as a whole, possess and exercise is a vital matter for the very survival of socialism and its development, a question that is being addressed by a few hundred university students, professors and professionals in Havana since November 2007.

Over the last 50 years, the Communist party and government strategy for survival has focused on unity: unity in decision-making, unity around the top leaders, and unity in the media. This strategy has enabled the country to resist the United States and allied efforts to smash it.

However, this approach has prevented leaders and the bureaucracy from believing that it can afford the “luxury” of allowing any significant active participation on the part of the population to discuss and decide what the nation’s politics and economy ought to be. Nor do the media question decisions taken.

When questioned about the wisdom of this control, officials either ignore the question or respond with examples of how the US intelligence apparatuses intervene in other countries´ processes when they are not in what Washington perceives as its interests.

Suffice it here to note the successful interventions in media organs during the Allende government in Chile (1970-73), and in Nicaragua during the first Sandinista government from 1979-1990.

“The University of Havana (Photo by Maycgx)”

Hunger for More Information
Cuba’s leadership has maintained that broader freedom of expression can place the nation’s very sovereignty in peril. While there is some truth to this historically, strict government control of the media and other channels of information and debate cripple the ability of the common man and woman from acquiring adequate information and ideas necessary for them to become empowered.

This had led a sizeable segment of the population, and especially the younger generations, to be, disbelievers of what they are told by the media. They hunger for more and open information.

Cuban historian and professor of the University of Oriente, Frank Josue Solar, recently wrote:

“It is not a question of luxury, an alternative which one can choose or not: worker democracy is a condition sin qua non for the normal unfolding of a socialist economy. Without this it is deformed, and finally perishes.”

In the past two years or so some leftist voices have begun to hold indoor workshops to discuss these questions. There are also handfuls of students at the University of Havana and the Cujae University who meet to discuss socialism’s future.

This is the first time in decades that the government has allowed such open critique, albeit confined indoors until now.

A group of university students, professors and professionals formed the Bolshevik Workshop to pay homage to the Russian revolution, at the 90th year anniversary in November 2007, and to discuss its trajectory and collapse.

Some 500 people assembled at the University of Havana. One of the workshop organizers, Ariel Dacal Diaz, a professor of law, delivered a paper on the subject. The English translation is available at: [1] http://www.marxist.com/cuba-october-youth-future.htm

“A sizeable segment of the population is hungry for more and open information (Photo by Caridad)”

Revitalizing Revolutionary Marxism in Cuba
At this assembly, and at a subsequent workshop, participants viewed the need to revitalize revolutionary Marxism, also in Cuba. The dozen coordinators of the original workshop continued writing but did not organize other meetings in 2008 although they did create a lively Spanish language website, [2] www.cuba-urss.cult.cu. They propose to “contribute to the empowerment of persons and groups in their practice as citizen-subjects within the Cuban revolution as a process and with socialism as its project.”

The website has hundreds of essays and articles by readers and past and current theoreticians and leading activists such as: Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Luxemburg, and Che…

At the end of January this year, the coordinators organized another workshop by the name: “To live the revolution 50 years after the triumph.” They now meet monthly at the Ministry of Culture’s Juan Marinello Center, close to the Plaza of the Revolution.

The Ministry’s Antonio Gramsci Department and the Superior Art Institute (ISA) are cosponsors. The meeting hall allotted can hold just under 100 persons. It was full at the initial workshop where the theme was: Sentidos y significados de la revolucion en la vida de nosotros. (The significance and meaning of the revolution in our lives).

This lay the basis for the following workshop- “The political system of the revolution: participation, popular subject and citizenship”–which I attended.

In its announcement folder, the coordinators wrote: “This workshop seeks to contribute to the analysis on the place of citizen participation in the political system, its forms of expression concerning sovereignty, the necessity of a political and legal culture consistent with the social protagonism at the moment to create, control, limit and enjoy the political and the law.”

Specific topics were: how does socialism reformulate the concept of citizenship; mechanisms of actual popular participation; how to contribute to empowerment, all within the context of Hagamos nuestra la revolución (Making the revolution ours).

After a brief introduction and a short Cuban film, “The revolution we make,” the filled meeting hall broke into four groups to discuss what experiences we had with active participation and with forced participation, and how we felt as subject-citizens. (My participation was mainly as an observer since I do not currently live and work in Cuba, which I did from 1987 to 1996.)

“Paulo Freire: “If the structure does not permit dialogue the structure must be changed.” (photo by Distant Camera)”

Frustrations and Impotence
Diverse expressions surfaced regarding active and “obligatory” participation. When people had felt they could participate and, perhaps make a difference they felt positive. The reverse was the case when their experiences were not truly voluntary.

A student said that it was possible “to participate but `they´ make the decisions”. A young woman student spoke enthusiastically about this workshop initiative, which allowed her to feel as an active subject, “hoping it can lead to making a difference for the society.”

A Colombian studying here said he felt more as a subject in Cuba than in Colombia but hoped for greater active participation.

An older woman, who classified herself as an ordinary worker, said she felt isolated. “`They´ don’t give me a chance to participate in any real sense. `They´ don’t take our commentaries seriously, so I feel like a crazy old woman.”

During a break, she said she believed the revolution has stood still since the mid-60s. A couple of older professional men, remembering those activist days when peasants and militia still carried weapons to defend the nation-which they did at the Bay of Pigs invasion and against counter-revolutionary groups infiltrated and financed by the CIA (Operation Mongoose)-believed the revolution died after that.

The walls were covered with handwritten quotations by Bertolt Brecht, Roque Dalton, Silvio Rodriguez and others. On one wall were posted words by Paulo Freire: “If the structure does not permit dialogue the structure must be changed.”

Summaries of each group’s discussion were read during the last plenary session. The experiences and sentiments were similar. Bureaucratic mechanism’s of control were outlined and criticized during the discussion period.

There was ample self-critique as well. We must overcome self-censorship. We must not yield to the fear of losing what we may have or hope to obtain, such as a better position, and thereby remain silent in face of unfairness or wrong decisions.

One young man said each of us should find ways to improve our own behavior. For example, we must stop throwing trash anywhere we feel like it. We should intervene in all our surroundings with a positive spirit that we can make change.

He said we can make “them” listen to us, because we are the producers, the people for whom the political structure serves. An older professor suggested we invite bureaucrats to meet with us, “because they are Cubans too and we could learn from one another”.

A young professor of law, Julio Antonio Fernandez, gave a brief talk, first giving a brushstroke of revolutionary political and legal history. He then defended the constitution of 1976 as a revolutionary one, and one legalizing an active citizenry for socialism, one that establishes popular control of all mechanisms for sovereignty. The audience was so attentive a pin could be heard to drop.

“We do not seek to regress to before the revolution: we must be designers and controllers… What is most important now is a critique of current state organisms and not the possible creation of ideal institutions,” said Fernandez.

He continued by asking: If a dominating regime is necessary how can it act without alienating the people? How can we democratize power?

We have formal rights of control, Fernandez said, but need to actualize them. The law is not that of the state but that of and for the people. Citizenry duty must be restored. He also spoke against continuing discrimination both of race and gender. The individual and the collective must recognize and confront these ills.

“The danger of imperialism is real and we must find forms to act taking this reality into account,” he concluded.

Participation Leads to Solutions
Following his well received analysis, the body was asked for comments, especially concerning the question of how one can participate in a revolutionary manner. One-fourth of the audience-25 people-made comments and offered ideas to further the revolutionary process, and some called for action.

Several people young and old said that the workshop process and its ideas should go public. There must be ways of involving workers, vital producers. Some said that while laws protect the right to associate and to organize associations, and no law prohibits strikes, the reality is something different.

No one dare try to organize strikes, and many who petition for permission to organize associations are ignored or denied their right.

An older lawyer said he was still waiting, now ten years, for a reply from the Ministry of Justice to his several petitions to organize a harmless, social association of descendants of Slavic people in Cuba.

A sociology professor said that while some professions were allowed to form associations, those in sociology-a study prohibited in Cuba for three decades, which the government reinstated in the mid-90s-were not. Yet no reason was given.

A history professor said it was necessary to define what socialism really is and what it should be. Among other things, socialism must be personal as well as collective. One must feel that he/she is a decision-maker. Without that sense, what occurred in Russia and Eastern Europe could well occur in Cuba.

“Participation leads to solutions and that is liberating,” he concluded.

Another person said that Internet is a liberating tool. The Cuban Ministry of Telecommunications has repeatedly said that broader access will be technologically possible when the Venezuelan undersea cable reaches Cuba later this year or next.

One participant raised doubts about whether a dominating state power was any longer a necessity, especially one in which many leaders retain power positions for many years, even decades.

A young female student said she felt stimulated by these workshops and was optimistic that positive changes could be made. Several youths echoed her sentiment. The last speaker, a Brazilian student, said that it was most important that the group not degenerate into sectarianism as do so many left groups around the world.

The next workshop, open to all, will take place on March 27, at 9:30 a.m. at the Centro Juan Marinello. Its theme will be: state property, social property and the socialization of production.

(Other pieces will be forthcoming.)