This piece does not deny Castro’s dictatorship (granted it doesn’t highlight it). The authors acknowledge the transition that Cuba was forced to make, Cubans were successful in transitioning on many fronts, but is now left with some major challenges [contradictions]. I don’t agree with how the authors have framed the challenges, but I do think their facts are substantiated and so won’t quibble with them as much as with their interpretation.

But there are others posting here who seem to deny the facts. Ideology does not supplant facts.

To those who criticize Cuba, what I note is a strong inclination toward asymmetrical moralizing. If what was done to Cuba was done to the US, perhaps we could better remark on the actions and reactions of the Cuban regime and Cuban people. Look at the morass resulting from 9/11 if needed proof is needed.

From my perspective, the challenge for Cuba is to transform (not simply transition) itself away from one man rule, to tap the full energies and creativity of the Cuban people. How well Cuba has been positioned for post-Castro (Fidel/Raul) is the greater question that this piece does not touch. Economics is always both overblown and narrow to the extreme. We live by GNP, GDP, Consumer Indices and Employment. These are all bogus metrics for the health and wealfare of the people of the US. Productivity is a major paradox. Producing more stuff is actually suicidal – not sustainable; and the commoditization of capital and thus increased productivity has absolutely nothing to do with American workers and employment. Most productivity gains are through automation (elimination of workers). It is a tragic joke.

Globalized corporate economics is nothing but a massive electronic casino – no one controls it, the US uses force to tie up world resources and ensure lospsided trade agreements. This only benefits the very rich.

Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and to some extent Brazil are showing a different way. It is grass-roots, deep, and appears to be (and one can only hope it continues) living democracy. Some of the Keynsian metrics are sprinkled for Western consumption, but the real changes have little to do with those out-moded and pathological indices.

We can argue about the US boot on Cuba and its impact. But the facts indicate that the US has made numerous direct and indirect attempts to assassinate Castro, and topple the government through economic embargos. This tactic is a US policy MO; applied for decades in the case of Cuba. To think this kind of massive pressure has not forced Cuba into a posture they would not otherwise take seems to me mystifying and limited.

Ah well … maybe the credit crisis will blow the whole capitalist pig farm to smitherenes … or a comet will put us our of our misery. Now that IS a hopeful picture?

The issue isn’t that Cuba or Castro has failed. Cuba is by many reports succeeding, but there is no finality in success. The authors are stating, at least from one perspective, that Cuba has been successful in providing health care, a balanced distribution – to a point – and universal education. Crime is below the US and South America in general. They have no cases of HIV (and the US?). A complete reversal on farming from mechanized (Soviet/US-styled) argibusiness to small sustainable farms which has greatly increased the yield and easily feeds the nation.

The US made hundreds (perhaps thousands) of attempts to overthrow Castro along with US proxies. This is a fact. The evidence is there if you care to check the recently released CIA records. Cuba survived. It survived a devastating blockade coupled with a collapsed Soviet and its deep economic ties. Cuba did, from many accounts, transition its economics not to capitalism but away from monolithic 20th century argibusinesses. In fact, Cuba has shown resiliance in a way that many developing countries could learn (if so many weren’t strapped by neoliberal trade agreements). Yes, it ihas trade agreements as one would expect. So far, these are not asymmetrical.

So, it is the US and its proxies who failed, but not for trying. It is not because it is an island. Come on. US occupied the Philipines for decades, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and many others it occupies.

No, the pressing issue Cuba must face is whether it has cultivated grass-roots leadership – the kind I mentioned above. Democracy is, from my perspective part of that, but it is a living democracy – not the thin crap we call democracy. I’m not sure whether that kind of major transition is been laid. The US has a legacy of wealth (mostly debt based) and military might (supreme), but we are struggling with real leadership and people based democracy. So, the challenge is not just with Cuba.

As far as east Europe, again, the facts are pretty clear and I won’t quibble with Petras, et al characterization.

The bottom line is, though, that the article is a devastating indictment of the Cuban dictatorship on every level, be it economic, social, cultural or political, and the only possible conclusion is that the dictatorship is on its last legs. Indeed, it seems to be well on the way to abolishing communism and is already in bed with the multinationals, including American corporations! One assumes that once Fidel dies, the introduction of democracy will follow fairly quickly here, as in the rest of Latin America.

I was amused to note that the Israelis are already installed. Pre-Castro, Havana was Jewish mafia country (specifically, Meyer Lansky, who was said to have more or less “manufactured” Batista!).

Why did Castro survive? Probably mostly because it is incredibly difficult to invade, or even infiltrate, an island. (Believe me, I know, I come from an island!) Also, with communism dead, buried, and discredited, Castro was small beans. He just wasn’t worth the trouble of overthrowing, all the more so as experience elsewhere suggested that, sooner or later, the people would overthrow the dictatorship, as they did in Europe. Now, with the tide turned worldwide against the US, nobody’s going to do Bush a favour! That means that Castro is now reduced to a “useful idiot” in Chavez’s plans. One assumes that a democratic Cuba would suit Chavez better, so he will probably pull the plug once Fidel dies.

Small correction of fact: there is no evidence of significant electoral fraud in the new European democracies and certainly none of election fixing by criminals. Bulgaria, Romania and Poland are EU members and the other Member States would object most strongly to anything like that. They, along with Albania and, indeed, Russia, are all members of the Council of Europe and as such, they are parties to the European Convention of Human Rights and subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. It would be very hard to get away with open electoral fraud or open consorting with criminals in that legal environment.

The challenge, now, is will Cuba slip into the clutches of greed based capitalism – in something of the way of China – or will it take up the Bolivarian revolution that reinforces grass-roots democracy and excites the imagination and creativity of the people. In other words, will the Cubans (and I can only glimpse an answer from your article) take hold of the reigns of power, will leaders be cultivated not as charasmatic but as servant leaders, mentors, and facilitators?

Have the Cuban people been prepared to run their affairs directly, solve their problems? The struggle and the success to date are laudable. But they will be washed away in an instant if there is not a deep durability, a sustainability that allows this movement to be a journey without end.

My sense is that the economics, as described, are far too European/Western in nature – at least as described. Yes, there are metrics, but many of the important metrics – revolutionary metrics have yet to be introduced.

Perhaps, the Venezuelan revolution can help with the continued transition for Cuba. Cuba needs to be defined by its people, not by the boot of US imperialism.

Viva Cuba and the Bolviarian Revolution!