BOURGEOIS COMMUNISM III

The 70's and early 80's brought a period of "stagnation " as compared with the chaotic 60s. The social events occurred on a slow motion fashion and within the boundaries of the Yalta "doctrine"; so we witnessed the Carnation Revolution in Portugal and the decolonization of Angola, Mozambique and other Third World nations. The Soviets swiftly jumped at the chance and were able to place their allies in most key places; "Lusitania", however, followed a different path and after several months of power struggling it remained in the west. In hindsight one could speculate that neither of the two superpowers wanted to rock the boat and had reached a tacit agreement by virtue of which the former colonies were allowed to try a populist course while the European nation remained a western country; be that as it may and despite Castro's flagrant meddling in Africa, the vital interests of the West were never in serous jeopardy. 

In the mid 80's the death of three Party chiefs and Mikhail Gorbachev's rise to power brought a more realistic approach to the deadwood infested bureaucracy in the USSR; once again anything could and would be done in order to salvage the system; the new face was a tactical maneuver within the same strategy, but the Soviet empire had been erected upon marshy land and it inevitably collapsed. For many of us it was the end of the red menace, but actually it was only the beginning of a new era; the Cold War had inoculated the west with a lethal dose of a deadly virus: self destruction.

Russia would later emerge from the debris of the USSR; the triumphalism created by the so-called demise of communism would keep the west off guard for a few years, long enough for the virus to get into its bloodstream and ironically vindicate the patient toil of thousands of KGB operatives 

The splintering of the communist nightmare would turn into hundreds of short bad dreams. Complacency and economic bonanza combined with a double talk rhetoric would continue to push the west to the abyss. The new century brought the condemnation of the right and the stereotyping of anything and everything conservative. No mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat but Gramsci's class alliances re emerged. All of a sudden the crimes of communism blurred. What really mattered was to depict capitalism as evil, to soften the lexicon to such a low that concepts like "self made man" or "rich" became blasphemies. If one was wealthy it was NEVER due to one's own efforts but due to the efforts of the "community". Suppression of individuality and exacerbation of collectivism.

A new breed of "progressive billionaires" started pulling the strings and they galvanized a huge sector of the middle class that once again was ready to abandon the certainty of the evil they knew only to embark on a journey to places unknown. Before long the pride of Americana ushered by Ronald Reagan faded into a collective and tenacious guilt complex. Success and wealth became a viability as our nation prepared for a milestone appointment with history: the election of the first African American president. TO BE CONTINUED...

TOO MUCH V.S. TOO LITTLE

The first few days of Mr Trump's presidency have been "lively" to say the least. The far left would criticize him even if he acted like a saint, but one cannot deny that the president has served gaffes to his detractors on a silver platter. Few people insist on being objective these days; you create a rumor; spread it, recruit a few accomplices to help and ABRACADABRA!!!; the damned thing becomes an absolute truth. It happens in both sides; in lieu of facts let's just invent them, the hell with decorum and moral standards; ratings and winning at all costs are here to stay. Let's keep the average American busy sorting through this huge pile of crap so that he or she forgets how drastically the quality of their lives has decreased. 

Amid this circus showbiz reaffirms its position as the third political party that for all practical purposes functions as an appendix of the Democrats; it embraces all just causes and calls all those who don't share their views deplorable; not part of the arts and bigots. It complacently awards itself all kinds of prizes, busts, statues and medals as if they were not partly responsible for the violence in our lives. Their movies, their music, the simplification of "the arts" and the edulcoration of our tragedies put them among the bad guys but who cares? There's this extravagant president who used to be part of them to take all the blame.

After a long campaign I came to fear Trump's thin skin, short fuse and protagonist impulses might cause us trouble down the road. He hasn't changed much; actually in some respects he childishly remains in campaign mode and forgets that he doesn't belong to himself anymore but to all Americans. For all the left's outcry and whining our president is putting together a decent team that could steadily hold the helm and steer the vessel off the abyss, whether he will let them work in full autonomy is the big question. Will he lead the band or play each and every instrument ?.

Eight years of inaction; apologies and denial pushed a large segment of the electorate to the point of exhaustion, Mr Obama's weakness, hesitation and aloof presence in the world affairs indeed hurt America; so we chose the opposite version. Will Trump's omnipresence  work where Obama's absenteeism failed?. Will the mogul from Queens  be able to tone down his rhetoric and lower his toughness to a "political" level without necessarily becoming a traditional politician?

BOURGEOIS COMMUNISM II

In the previous chapter; we identified the attempts made throughout history to keep the utopia alive; 1968 was a tumultuous year but the need for change undermined both the west and the communist bloc. Alexander Dubcek, the newly elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, applied some reforms in an effort to put a human face to a totalitarian regime; after diplomatic pressure failed the Soviet leadership sent troops of the Warsaw Pact to "normalize" the small Central European country. As usual, the west limited its response to political gestures and symbolic press coverage; this hasty decision, however, caused a fracture within the hitherto increasing segment of academics, artists, students and blue collar workers who felt at odds with the status quo in the capitalist societies. It also cost Fidel Castro a sizable portion of his revolutionary prestige and irreversibly damaged his image as a Maverick communist. The "indomitable" Comandante, trapped by the dilemma between his own survival and remaining the immaculate leader of the Third World chose the former and after juggling with revolutionary rhetoric for more than a half hour he swallowed his pride and publicly supported the Kremlin's actions. The US Communist Party, whatever that political specter may be, also gave its irrelevant blessing to the invasion. Ironically enough it was Nicolae Ceausescu's finest hour since he publicly condemned the violent  meddling in Czechoslovakia's internal affairs; Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha predictably joined the voices against Moscow.

The Italian and the Spanish communist parties had been for sometime working on yet another attempt to avoid the demise of communism; aware of how different their world was from the one Lenin had lived in and mindful of the effectiveness and celerity of modernization in their respective countries, they had concluded that the Soviet way was not their way, that a third or a fourth route needed to be found; standing ovations in Moscow did not translate into votes in the elections in Italy nor did they dent the body of Franco's improving economy in Spain. The invasion of Czechoslovakia was the straw that broke the camel's back. As author Christopher Hitchens put it: "What became clear, however, was that there was no longer something that could be called the world Communist movement. It was utterly, irretrievably, hopelessly split. The main spring had broken. And the Prague Spring had broken it."

Despite the "atrocities" perpetrated by the Americans in Vietnam; the exploitation of the masses in Latin America, and Asia; the literal theft of Africa's vast resources by the western powers through a new brand of colonialism the lyrics of the Internationale did not ring true anymore for millions of workers and middle class citizens that had a roof over their heads, drove cars and watched television in the living rooms of houses with running water and electricity. The challenge had to come from within if communism was to survive. Brezhnev's self inflicted mortal stab had precipitated that inconvenient truth to the forefront. Eurocommunism gained momentum and the historic compromise reached between Christian Democrat Aldo Moro and Communist leader Enrico Berlinguer in Italy made the schism official. The historic compromise is also the result of the coup-d'etat in Chile and Berlinguer's realization that the left by itself was not capable of governing, at least not yet; Gramsci was vindicated for a brief moment, but Italy's chaotic political scenario and perhaps a little help from one or more western intelligence services shortened the honeymoon and paved the way for il Pentapartito, a balancing act of Christian Democrats, Socialists, Republicans (nothing to do with our GOP) Social Democrats, and Liberals (nothing to do with our left) It is important to note that in their quest to save the dream communists & Co. renounced Satan but never did they deviate from their objective destroying our"liturgy"from within... TO BE CONTINUED

CROSSOVER

I will humbly suggest to Hugo Landa, director of Cubanet (one of the few "initiatives" on Cuba where the use of tax payer money seems to have a meaning) to try and create an English version of his medium. I can't define the actual outreach of this daily digital publication, but at least I see it coming every weekday and it usually covers a wide range of issues that affect the lives of the average Cuban people. Joe and Jane should definitely have access to that information. My native island simply cannot continue to be a ghetto theme nor the mere obsession of a shrinking and aging segment in  our community.

In today's issue there was an article that I found enlightening in more ways than one as well as a word that has always come across to me as euphemistic; the former was about a slave uprising in the 19th century presumably triggered by the love between Carlota and Fermina, two slave women. But it was not the usually "censored" story that surprised me since we all tend to observe history through our hindsight twenty/twenty vision, but the fact that in those days reforms were introduced in order to treat the slaves in a more "humane" way with the real objective of avoiding their push towards "abolition". 

Some claim history repeats itself; for the skeptics it is first tragedy and then comedy; in the case of Cuba I can't help noticing how we return to the 19th century when so many supporters of a new approach to our relations with the Havana Junta claim to have witnessed improvements in that tiny nation; would this be the grotesque contemporary version of the more "humane" treatment after Carlota and Fermina were butchered?. 

The latter was not any particular article or topic, but the abuse of the word "project"; thus, Diaz Canel, the would be heir apparent to the lower throne (that of the presidency of Council of State of the National Assembly; i.e. the regime's version of a president), being the post of First Secretary of the Communist Party the ONLY position of power, made a speech in which he mentions "our revolutionary project"; then as I kept reading other articles I saw the same word this time describing an opposition initiative against the regime; it suddenly dawned on me that the elite that rules the nation has long ago imposed their own semantics and that one of the first steps any opposition movement must take is to put forth a new and more affable narrative, a less dense rhetoric, a more agile semantics; we can't use words from the time of the transistor radio in the age of binary language; how can one translate celluloid into digital imagery?.

During the last two years, long before anyone imagined the Democrats could lose the White House, I have called for a revision of the so called "support to the efforts for democracy in Cuba"; actually, not to abandon the Cuban people, on the contrary, to make sure that EVERY penny we spend is aimed at easing the hardships endured by the populace and eventually broadens their horizon. I, by default, give any Cuban who opposes the current situation the benefit of the doubt. But it is time to use our money effectively and do away with the pinata that some make on our dime. While I admire and praise all those who really work for the Cuban people; as it is the case, among others, of many individuals of faith, I'm drafting a letter to the Trump administration requesting, to use his own words: a better deal, more tangible resorts for our money so that the word project ceases to be a synonym of political panhandling.

BOURGEOIS COMMUNISM

The sacred and glorious struggle of the proletariat is no longer sexy and appealing; it has lost its effect on our imagination as the relations of production shifted from the assembly line to technologically operated production and the distribution of services. The ancient temptation of a few to control the lives of their fellow human beings and accumulate the largest possible chunk of wealth and power has not in the least disappeared though. The slogans have changed, the strategy is more subtle and it basically consists in the demoralization of the west; the dismembering of our society and the establishment of a hypocritical farewell state where a handful of enlightened rulers decide where we live, what we eat, which words we must pronounce, and most importantly: what we deserve. The west must be submitted to a state of continuous chaos hinged on a confrontation between the haves and the have nots, the rich and the poor, the whites and the other groups. It all must appear as the vindication of the downtrodden masses; trouble is that behind the revolutionary rhetoric said confrontation; real or imaginary, is financed by a handful of magnates that hope to seize absolute power following a different route. They aim at the eventual elimination of the rich, except for them. They aim at eradicating privileges except for theirs. They aim at making all human beings equal, provided that they remain above such equality. In lieu of an ideology they have opted for a new normal; a constant crisis and the demonization of everything western; they plant, irrigate and grow a nagging sentiment of guilt among us; successful is shameful, white is backward, traditional is bigot, religious is obsolete. They strategically place their minions in the media, in academia and tell us tales of the best of humanity only to exacerbate the lowest instincts of the animal within us. When they have their people in power they minimize any alarms and promise us our robust institutions will withstand any attack, when the other group wins they return to mobilization and marches to allegedly save our hitherto bullet proof institutions from an imminent threat. This sordid wannabe philosophy is what I call...BOURGEOIS COMMUNISM 

I coined this term recently and many of my friends in the left cried foul without even stopping to think for a minute; the word communism struck them harder than the word bourgeois. The left flirts with communist methods of mobilization and networking but refuses to be labeled as such. Before we try to define this new phrase we must revisit the different attempts to salvage communism through the years and we may be surprised to realize that those attempts date back to the time when Antonio Gramsci (Leader of the Italian Communist Party PCI) harshly criticized sectarianism in the left and  argued that communists should build social alliances  to secure hegemonic support for social reforms. He didn't call for coalitions to govern but just for alliances in order to gain momentum and "hegemonic" support to activate the reforms they considered necessary; in other words: with more savviness and dropping the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" Gramsci proposed a smart softening of the rhetoric clearly affirming that at the end of the day the communists would piggyback on those lured by their pompous slogans and happily ever after fairy tales and then, when the time were right, thoroughly screw them; so hammer and sickle would give way to dove and olive branch but screwed the poor allies will end up being just the same. 

Gramsci used the category of cultural hegemony to explain how the bourgeoisie managed to maintain,  through culture, the values, or lack there of, and the pillars of capitalism. It is no coincidence that many western communists after him identified culture and ideology, rather than guns and sables, as the effective weapons to be used in order to do away with the old order and establish the new one. After World War II the USSR and the west enjoyed a brief honeymoon. The Yalta agreement sanctified the status quo and basically once a communist always a communist was the new rule. That doesn't mean that the Soviet intelligence service stopped for a minute its plans to undermine the west from within and use the very free world legal system to subvert the laws and create as much chaos as possible. Left on their own the western communist parties, except for occasional visits to Moscow for a few bear hugs, realized that they had to find their own ways of surviving; briefcases filled with rubles helped pay the bills but didn't buy consciences. The uprise in Budapest and the harsh Soviet response made it even more clear: the status quo would not be changed; so what was there to hope for those in the west with communist ideals? Would the Soviet way be the only path to a better future or, as at least in theory it had repeatedly been said, each country would apply the Marxist theory to the specificities of its own reality? the execution of Imre Nagy and the incarceration of thousands of Hungarians did not seem to favor the latter option.

Then, out of the blue, the tiny island of Cuba emerged as a third option. A communist government right in America's backyard. The western hemisphere became restless, the newly decolonized nations of the Third World saw a vivid example of how it was indeed possible to achieve power by violent means, for a moment the Big Bear gave a fatherly nod of approval to arms struggle, but the Ukrainian peasant who knew how to make Stalin laugh much better than how to rule a nation predictably lost control; inebriated with enthusiasm he gave  the apocalyptic bearded Cuban a few atomic missiles and put the world in the brink of nuclear war. A more collegiate regime was imposed on the Soviet people and Castro was reminded that there was a balance to respect. The Viet Nam war was a reason for unrest in the west; protests emerged in cities like Paris and Mexico City; and when it seemed that the we would all move to a more fair state of affairs Soviet tanks were sent to crush yet another attempt of salvaging communism, this time in Prague.

TO BE CONTINUED...

THE WET, THE DRY, AND THE SHAMEFUL

   


This "peaceful" transition appears to be anything but peaceful; the exiting president continues to make decisions that will impair the effectiveness of the future Commander in Chief and my friends in the left; so diligent to vent outrage even if Mr Trump kills a bee, do nothing but showing a knowingly smile. Last week Mr Obama, after a period of yet another secret negotiations with his newfound buddy, Raul Castro, (remember the hug attempt in Havana after the press conference) decided to end effective immediately the wet foot, dry foot law of 1995. I have often said publicly that our country, the United States of America, has every right to regulate who enters and who stays out. My point instead goes to the timing and the history of how we got here.

Every nation has its way of paying for its mistakes; thus, Spain recently granted citizenship to millions of Latin Americans, Italy has more flexible laws for nationals of Ethiopia, Eritrea and other countries affected by Mussolini's clownish attempt to revive the Roman Empire in World Wat Two. Native Americans, the few remaining, were granted some privileges so that the rest of us can live with ourselves. In some quarters there is even talk about reparation for African Americans. It was therefore only logical and fair that a huge mistake made by a good president (Dwight Eisenhower) i.e. forcing Fulgencio Batista out of Cuba and allowing Castro to take power and impose a brutal totalitarian regime that still keeps the island hostage, be somewhat repaired by allowing the Cuban nationals some immigration exceptions the culmination of which was the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

It wasn't always easy; different waves of Cuban exiles underwent different legal limitations and while his detractors claim Don Jorge Mas Canosa was responsible for pressing Clinton pass the "unfair wet foot, dry foot" I see it as the best the late Cuban American leader could get. Despite its irregular and almost fate based nature, it was better than nothing; let us not forget that up until the downing of two civil aircrafts in international waters by the Cuban Air Force Mr Clinton seemed favorable to lifting the embargo and normalizing relations with the Havana regime. Be that as it may, Cubans had it much easier that any other nationality when it came to legalizing their status in the US.

On the dark side, thousands of Cuban abused the generosity of the American people and used their privileges to, in a way, enjoy the best of both worlds. A wide gap (ideological and generational) was created between those arrived decades ago and the recent wave of economic immigrants that came only to have a better life and eventually fly back to their native island as often as possible to show off their alleged success. The recalcitrant faction had to choose, the younger "exiles" had their cake and ate it too. Said difference inevitably caused friction not only between the old and the new among the Cubans, but also a growing resentment within the Latin American community that with a mixture of envy and fair frustration saw the Cubans live "la vida loca" while they had to remain in the shadows. Also, the law incentivized hundreds of thousands to risk their lives in makeshift rafts most of which wouldn't make it in a bathtub, let alone the 90 miles between Cuba and US soil. But doesn't the existence of sanctuary cities; so cool in most liberal quarters, incentivize Mexicans and other Latin Americans to cross the border illegally and risk rape and murder by the "coyotes"; why the double standard ?

If an average American, unaware of the long journey and the vicissitudes  endured by our community looks at the situation he or she is likely to agree with Obama's decision and even consider it humanitarian in some respect. Not knowing the path that led us here an imparcial human being cannot fail to applaud anything that reduces the risk of people drowning in the ocean and as Cuban Americans it is our patriotic duty to shed light on this issue; to tone down the rhetoric and to dissect the intricacies of our narrative in order to match Joe's and Jane's limited knowledge of, and interest in, the issue.

To make matters worse, the ever supportive segment of Mr Obama within the Cuban American community now pulls the excuse of Senator Rubio and Representative Curbelo previous attempts to change the Cuban Adjustment Act in light of the piñata that many Cubans had made of said law. Some even claim Trump wanted to derogate the law himself and the incumbent only made his job easier. Let's go over each point with a fine tooth comb:

1- The risk taken by so many Cubans fleeing the island in rafts is nothing our president learned about last week; it has always been there and has always been the weakest part of the law to which the Cuban Americans have held on fast in lieu of a better alternative. Eliminating the law just hours from leaving the White House is an outrageous act of cheap politicking and unscrupulous judgement that once again proves the president is closer to the regime than he is to us.

2- Senator Rubio and Congressman Curbelo, at least judging by their statements, claim to have foreseen a favorable environment in Congress to lift the embargo and kill the Act; therefore, according to their reasoning, they wanted to make sure the violations of the act and the ambiguity that have come to reign did not become the target of Congress nor jeopardize the entire Act all together. I can't speak for them, but I'm positive that even if they had succeeded in derogating the dry foot, wet foot law, there would have been an announcement and a deadline instead of this chaotic and criminally provoked stranding of Cubans in the Straits of Florida; effective immediately only underscores how evil, vindictive and petty the left can be. It wouldn't even surprise me if this degree of harshness is payback for our vote favoring Trump.

3- Whether Trump wanted to do the same and Obama beat him to it is anybody's guess. It is unlikely though that the incoming president had applied such expeditiousness to his decision.

4- I continue to firmly believe the normalization of relations with the regime is part of a geopolitical gambit dictated by the highest echelon of power in America betting on a soft landing in the neighboring island rather than a collapse of the aging regime. For decades, the rafts and the makeshift boats have been a valve to ease pressure whenever the regime perceived its system had overheated; closing this valve could trigger a crash landing. Would this be an instance when the president goes against the powers that be?

5- The younger generations of Cuban Americans must realize that regardless of its sometimes virulent and extreme positions the old guard is their only and should I say natural ally; the left uses them for electoral purposes or to advance their dark agenda on Cuba  but tosses them without hesitation once their objectives have been reached. I see a lot of praising for Obama and unfair and excessive criticism of our elderly. I'll sit and wait until some of these critics helplessly see their relatives kicked back to Cuba.

6- In an attempt to justify everything coming from Camp Obama some argue that announcing a deadline for the application of the new reality would have triggered an avalanche similar to that of the Mariel boatlift of 1980; well I would have appreciated if the same zealousness and secrecy had been used to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr Trump seems to be in for a bumpy start; partly due to his thin skin and irascible temperament, but largely because of the complex situation he will encounter since day one; last November elections rejected Obama's legacy; time will tell if history emulates the electorate.

FAREWELL TO ARMS

The president delivered a superb speech; an excellent piece of rhetoric and oratory that at times turned my eyes a bit teary. I saved the video for future references; and if one wants to remain objective there was little during these almost fifty minutes that we can disagree on in terms of the theory. Being a Republican I would advise all my fellow party affiliates to carefully study the content of Mr Obama's goodbye.

This piece should be interpreted in two different dimensions: the pure philosophical statement and the actual application of what the speech proposes. It is indeed accurate that exchange of ideas is the basis of the edifice that we call knowledge; this, however, is sadly contradicted by the lack of negotiating will shown by the president and his supporters being the nuclear option passed by Harry Reid the crown jewel of legislative bullying.

It is also true that one cannot fully understand "the other person" until one sees things from his or her perspective; but this has also been shamefully denied by the outright character assassination of anything anti Obama; the president was right when he claimed that despite gigantic steps towards racial integration a lot needs still to be done; once again the rhetoric is the right one, in actuality his eight years are the example of a wasted opportunity. With the authority of his office and his still high approval ratings Barack Hussein Obama was in a position, like no other individual on earth, not to make miracles, but to at least break the ice and initiate this famous "conversation" about race relations in America.

I can't agree more with our Commander in Chief when he says that participation in the political process is not in the least limited to mere election; I have more often than not complained about my fellow Republicans' lack of philosophical substance and absence of "activism"; which is in the main reason why we have lost academia to the left. I understand this weakness transcends partisanship and that we the people must be the protagonists of the political dynamics. To his point, the president stated that it is we the citizens and not anything else the foundations of our society; in practice once again his deeds go against his words as he is the de facto leader of the most elitist version of the Democrats we have seen in years and despite the backhanded self criticism and crocodile weeping just a few days ago they crushed the ambitions of the new blood by stubbornly keeping Nancy Pelosi as their leader in Congress.

His public conveyance of gratitude to his family was a touching moment; I can be on the opposite side of Obama's philosophical persuasion but I harbor no doubts about his devotion for his wife, his beautiful daughters and his ever loyal, ever the soldier Joe Biden, the human bond knows no limits nor is it defined by our political inclinations.

In the substance we disagree on one fundamental issue: whilst beautifully crafted, the speech tells us of a bonanza most people don't see; America is not more respected now than it was eight years ago, we haven't conjured the possibility of a nuclear Iran; we have repeatedly failed to observe the red lines that we ourselves have set. Our relations with Israel are at an all time low, and while we managed to return from "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", we have compromised our children's future for generations to come and mortgaged our sovereignty by running into a record high debt. None of that started under his watch, but he has certainly done nothing to correct such dangerous route.  

On a personal note I felt reasonably optimistic when the president challenged all of us by saying "if you're tired of arguing with someone in the Internet; try talking to him (or her) in person" the quote is not literally accurate, but what matters is that I have this recipe as part of my life: putting people together; the human touch beyond all differences; although from a different perspective and with a different objective I fully support this statement.

An excellent speech indeed that unfortunately depicts all but the actual performance of our exiting president; to sum it up:

1- Lots of people loved America; millions hated us, but pretty much everyone feared us. After Obama's presidency the hatred shows no sign of diminishing, love for us has certainly not increased one bit and, what is most alarming: we are being frequently defied and challenged by third rate dictators and blood thirsty thugs.

2- The racial divide is now wider than 20 years ago.

3- The so-called economic recovery under his watch has triggered a $7.4 trillion (with T like tango) increase of our debt. I leave it to the experts to crunch a few numbers and define how much each "recovered" job has cost us.

4- To make matters worse; Mr Obama seems engaged in a very personal plan to make it as difficult as possible for the next president.

Speeches can be skillfully drafted, but they are useless if not based on substance. The president's goodbye was not a farewell to arms but the announcement of new and more lethal weapons to be wielded against anything and everything traditionally American.