As to Castro, to say that he is a great political leader is not to say he has no flaws or that there are no problems in Cuba. Yet the poorest Cubans are much better off now than they were before 1959. Healthier, living longer, better chances to get education, less discriminated against if they are black, etc. All things considered, I think the revolution was and is a good thing.

I need to add as well that I live in the United States and have been a labor educator and a person in class solidarity with workers. So I might have a light influence on what happens in the labor movement here. What I say about the UFW might be useful to activists trying to build a strong labor movement. Theye might try hard to avoid what Chavez did. And what he did had little to do with gettinngn rid of leftists, communists or otherwise. On the other hand, the Cuban people will have to determine their own fate. There are a million and one others denouncing Castro, Cuba, etc., as if this tiny nation was the incarnation of evil. If I don’t choose to add my voice to those, you can call me an apologist if you choose. It doesn’t matter to me. I hope though that you are denouncing the US blockade and tallying up in your mind the dead caused by the US against those caused by Cuba. And the good done by both nations. A comparison of Cuban and US doctors might give you pause.

Do I wish that there was more artistic and other types of freedom in Cuba? Yes. But you take a short paragraph in a reply to a young man who asked me about Cuba and make a lot more out of it than it deserves. Your love of free speech is to be applauded. I hope you think everyone ought to get enough to eat, medical care, etc. with the same fervor.

I read your interesting and well-written analysis of Randy Shaw’s book Beyond the Fields: César Chávez, the UFW, and Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century (http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/michael-yates-reviews-randy-shaw-on-cesar-chavez/).

I appreciated your candor and your insight. It is always painful yet useful to learn more about someone—Cesar Chavez in this case—who has come to symbolize selfless service and sacrifice, and yet, we discover, had an authoritarian streak that belies what one would hope would be the essence of the UFW struggle and countless others.

I further appreciated your feedback to the young kid (on your about Michael Yates page in the comment section) who is a self-proclaimed Marxist in New Jersey, I believe, and was struggling in debate with a couple of libertarians (a sort of sweet thought in itself). The libertarian idea that both parties necessarily benefit from transactions (in a so-called free market) is, as you pointed out to the kid, horrendously flawed. No matter how hard I try, I can’t see how libertarians can’t let this confused transaction theory go, in light of history, racism, serfdom, Goldman Sachs and on and on. Maybe it’s the hypnotic eyes of Ayn Rand (joking).

Another grand flaw in libertarian thinking, it seems to me, is their general inability to include the same disdain and/or fear for Big Business simultaneously with their (in my opinion often justified) disdain and contempt for Big Government. At least the latter, theoretically, is elected.

But Michael, may I explain where I get confused by a couple of your comments, and I would like very much for you to explain where I may be confused. You say things like this in the review: “Is it surprising that Chávez was a staunch anti-communist and engaged in vicious and mindless purges and red-baiting of those who challenged his authority?” and “But Huerta has never repudiated Chávez’s dictatorial, hateful, and ruinous behavior.”

Fair enough.

But then in your note to the kid on your blog site, you conclude by saying: “Fidel is the greatest political leader of the past century. What Cuba has done in medicine, education, and environment has been phenomenal.” Now, I’ll give you the three things. And further, from what I have read, Cuba’s sending of doctors to places of need around the world has also been commendable, by countless accounts. And Cuba’s little known military fighting (with Angola) to help break the grip of apartheid South Africa is virtually unknown. And of course, the embargo by the American government etc., has been crippling and brutal.

But I am confused. To speak of Cesar Chavez’s authoritarianism and “dictatorial, hateful, and ruinous behavior” and “vicious and mindless purges” as negative (which of course, if true, they are), and then call Castro “the greatest political leader of the past century…” seems to me highly paradoxical, and not dissimilar to the degree of discord (and what I perceive to be indoctrination) of the libertarian idea of mutual benefit for both parties simply because there is a transaction.

Further, Cesar Chavez receives a lot of your disdain, it seems, for his attachment to the Catholic church and his purging of communists. Fair enough, and I do understand that to a Marxist, affection towards Catholicism and a purging of communists would be in general, by definition, offensive.

But Castro? I’m under the impression that a writer living in Cuba could not safely or easily write with the same flavour about Castro as you applied to Chavez—and get away with it. For the good things in Cuba, as you mentioned, has there not been 51 years of “authoritarian” dictatorship? And when this dictatorship is opposed, many “vicious purges.”

Indeed, Reporters Without Borders has much commentary on Cuba’s attack on independent journalists (and the criticisms against RWB’s statements are typical*, and anybody can argue anything, if they find the right angle). And Amnesty International has recently listed 55 prisoners of conscience, some with massive sentences, as of March 2010, many for Law #88, the so-called “Gag law.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/004/2010/en/a73cf4be-893e-46cf-9dce-22034719aa58/amr250042010en.pdf

My point again, Michael, is simply this: As sure as I am baffled by the conflict of simultaneously opposing views in the libertarian ideology (yet libertarians can explain what they mean over and over again), I am baffled by your attack on Cesar Chavez for his “dictatorial” and authoritarian ways and “vicious and mindless purges” NOT IN PRINCIPAL, of course, but IN LIGHT OF your deepest respect and adoration for an undeniably authoritarian, 51 year long dictator in Cuba.

I truly hope I haven’t been offensive. I don’t mean to be. Again, I got a lot out of your article, but my mind is unable to figure out (like with the libertarians) this discord. I would truly like to understand where you see me as confused or, indeed, where you agree with me.

All the best,

Pete

*Note: I just read, for example, french university lecturer Salim Lamrani’s attack on Reporters Without Borders with regard to Castro, but then see Lamrani write here:

“After being Prime Minister for almost 18 years (February 1959- January 1976) and President of the Republic from December 2, 1976 to July 31, 2006, the most famous revolutionary leader of the twentieth century retired from official political life four days before the elections, which would designate the members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers and its president…

This decision, is logical since Fidel Castro, in a letter dated December 17, 2007, had already shown his wish of not “hanging on to positions” and “being consistent until the end.”

I agree that Castro was “consistent to the end”, both in decent and, for me, awful, hateful and authoritarian ways. But not “hanging on to positions?” Is this guy serious? My god. Even one who supports Castro’s ways should laugh at that. Indeed, I think Castro would laugh at that. Pointing out Castro’s strengths is one thing. But to be an apologist for his brutality and his punitive attack on free speech (indeed, stealing people’s lives) seems to me sadly unfortunate. Similarly, I despair at the US incarceration rates for what must be countless innocuous charges. In fact, I often quote 19th century libertarian Lysander Spooner, with regard to the utterly catastrophic War On Drugs, who once said what we seem to have forgotten: “A vice is not a crime.” I believe with all my heart the same about free speech.

The Maoists in Nepal have been waging a legitimate peoples’ war, and after agreeing to cease hostilities and engage in regular politics, the opposition reneged on the agreement to incorporate the Maoist army inot teh national army. So the Maoists ahve begun an ingenious and mass-based popular campaign to overthrow the government. There are many lessons to be learned from them.

I have great sympathy for the Cuban revolution and think Fidel is the greatest political leader of the past century. What Cuba has done in medicine, education, and environment has been phenomenal.

On your last paragraph, you should find these things out by looking, for example, at the Economic Policy Institute website (www.epinet.org), especially The State of Working America.

Take care,

Michael

Thank you very much for your insight. Also I’ve noticed that you have some critical support for the Maoists in India and Nepal. I guess your one of those communists who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty or even draw blood if need be (though violence is never a value in itself; I’ve always found it disgusting, but at times necessary to overthrow the violence of exploitation).

How do feel toward Cuba and Castro? I’m in solidarity with the Revolution, and I have few qualms with Fidel.

Also, what’s the state of poverty, unemployment, hunger and so forth in America. People where I grow up live in this bubble for the most part about these inequities, and fall into the “trickle-down blame” defense.

jose

Thank you for your note. I am happy to see that a young person is thinking deeply about things. This gives us all hope for a better world!

Your libertarian friends are not using the word exploitation correctly. They are saying that all transactions between individuals are, by definition, mutual, that is, both parties always benefit. They are exploiting, that is, making an agreement with each other. Each party benefits, they say, because, otherwise, why woud they make the agreement in the first place. You and I agree to somethin (you asked me for information and I tried to provide it). We are “exploting,” that is agreeing to something, voluntarily.

The problem is that in the labor market, workers and employers do not face each other as equals. Every capitalist economy hs begun with a great deal of inequality to start with. The market (where the mutual “exploitation” occurs. according to your friends) must, because of the way it works, keep thi sinequlaity going, and in fact, alwasys makes it worse unless there are interveing factors, such as strong labor unions, government regulation like minimum wage laws, etc. If you ask your friends to prove otherwise they will not be able to do so. They will always fall back on a “blame the individual” argument. No matter how stark an example you give them (compare a child from a very rich family and one from a very poor family and ask them what are the chances the poor kid will become rich), and no matter what data you show them, they will always resort to an argument based upon individual blame. Sooner or later they will say, if you push tehm hard enough that people are born unequal, that is, it is all genetic. I guarantee you that they are not themselves poor. Ask them.

I agree that exploitation is a value neutral term, but not how they think. Exploitation is the capacity of employers to force workers to labor more hours than it takes to produce the things, which when sold, will allow the employer to pay their wages. Employers exert such force because they own the factores, etc. that we have to have access to to live. We have no choice but to work for someone. Your libertarian friends will say that anyone can start a business, so no one is forced to be a wage laborer. You can ask them how a peson without money to start with (billions of people worldwide) will live wtihout money while they are starting a business. But don’t bet they will thn see the light. they will say all sorts of things and maybe give you a couple of rags to riches stories. You might reply that thye cannot give you a single example of anyone getting rich without a lot of societal and family support (schools, inheritance, government contracts, political connections, etc.).

Ask your friends to show you clearly and in plain language how business profits are possible. How can all the employers combined lay out a total sum of money for labor and capital and come out with a bigger sum of money. The low costs of one employer are the lower income of another. An increase in demand for one thing must mean, with fixed total incomes, a lower demand for something else. Only Marx’s analysis tells us the source of profits–the exploitation of workers.

hope this helps. keep me posted.

michael yates

ps check out http://www.monthlyreview.org/597huber.htm