On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Georgi M. Derluguian wrote:
> ...yes, Castro is a much
> more legitimate ruler than Honneker or Brezhnev. He has support in the
> population, although I'd be cautious describing it as "widespread". This
> support had sound roots in the massive Soviet aid, and in the valliant
> anti-American stance.
> The question, however, is, what does this have to do with socialism? How
> can you distinguish this program from nationalism?
Good point. An even sharper question for Cuba-philes: is there really any
difference between the Cuban national mobilization and, say, that of the
Singaporeans under Lee Kuan Yew? Singapore has state socialism all over
the place, ranging from Government-owned and run corporations to mandatory
pension and housing funds, etc. etc. (there are also restrictions of civil
liberties, and a virtual one-party state, though dissidents are generally
silenced or marginalized indirectly, via lawsuits, a Government-run court
system and whatnot, and not with direct violence). Still, the Government
is reasonably clean, efficient and delivers quality public services at a
reasonable cost.
This is not to say that Cuba had much of a choice about its developmental
model -- the alternative was to be terminated a la Allende, and Singapore
had a lot more ideological and fiscal leeway to do things their way
instead of the American way. What I do want to
stress is that socialism is not this all-or-nothing, theological
category; rather, we've got to start thinking about socialisms with
a small "s" -- the countless ways that ordinary people
resist market forces and fight capitalism and create islands of
solidarity with one another the world over, maybe not
overtly or with the clarity of Fidel's speeches, but resist nonetheless.
-- Dennis