Translation: Our kind of dissent

Imperialism's propaganda war against Cuba shapes our perceptions in subtle ways.

Tiny grouplets of Cuban citizens who receive funding from US subversion programmes aimed at regime change are labelled "dissidents" by the corporate media. They're paid to saturate the blogosphere with diatribes against Cuba's social order, which happens to be different from the one that dominates the planet.   

What does Yoani Sanchez, the narcissistic child of US neocolonial aspirations, dissent from? The decaying global capitalism that has given rise to the Arab Spring, the indignados and the Occupy movement? The US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?   

Could it be that the millions of Cubans who sustain an epic resistance on their besieged archipelago are the real dissidents?

Here, Juventud Rebelde deputy editor Ricardo Ronquillo Bello touches on several important themes. The internet poses an additional challenge to Cuba's revolutionary media alongside those arising from efforts to overhaul Cuba's socialist-oriented development model.

Our kind of dissent 

By Ricardo Ronquillo Bello, Juventud Rebelde, March 3, 2012

Translation: Marce Cameron

There’s an alluring connection between an editorial in our daily – published on March 13, 1999 – and the 120 year anniversary of the Newspaper of the Homeland that we’ll celebrate on March 14 and the Cuban Revolutionary Party[1] that gave rise to it.

“This paper was and will be a dissident one”, was the heading under which Juventud Rebelde announced its resumption as a daily paper. “We have a moral and patriotic obligation to dissent from those who are ashamed of their past[2], from those who sell themselves for 30 greenbacks, from those who adopt the uncomfortable position of kneeling so they can be blessed by the wind from the north[3]; we dissent from those who don’t believe in dreams, from the docile and the corrupt”, we said back then. “We return in rebellion against the physical and mental idlers, the sloths and the inept, the pessimists and the defeated.”

In that editorial it was also stated that we return to a daily schedule not as an independent newspaper, but one with a great dependence on our history, on our people, on our most genuine and valid traditions, on our Revolution.

The editorial did no more than reaffirm for the readers, during the times in which we overcame the greatest moral blow dealt to socialism, what had been the dilemma of the Cuban press journalists.

We came from a journalistic and revolutionary tradition nurtured by the deepest vocation to serve, passed on from the founders of the nation, among others Father Felix Varella who, when addressing the purpose of and progress towards independence, pointed out that he renounced the pleasure of being applauded for the satisfaction of being useful to the homeland. For Jose Marti, the press should be the guard-dog of the house of the homeland: “It must disobey the appetites of personal welfare and attend impartially to the public good.”

This legacy should also serve those accustomed to the apologetic justifications, the silences and the distortions that were never lacking along the complex path of socialist construction, and as a pillar for the kind of press demanded by almost all the social, political and economic actors in the country, including generations of journalists.

It's not viable to continue encouraging forms of journalism based on reaffirmation that were entrenched in no few of our journalistic spaces, while turning to others to defend the best revolutionary ideas. We need to pass from forms of institutional dependence to independence, or self-regulation, as advocated by those who teach journalism.

Journalistic practices based on reaffirmation and marked institutional dependence often ignore the descent into errors, making the reversal of their consequences more complex and costly.

No few evils that hold back our society persist due to the distortion of the checks and balances functions of the media, together with those of other structures of democratic debate. Voluntarism, combined with apologetics and the absence of institutional self-regulation, ended up being a deplorable trinity.

It’s not coincidental that the press, which had arrived at the most recent congress of the Cuban Journalists Union with updated orientations for its work from the Political Bureau of the Communist Party, is faced with a necessary transformation, as stressed in the debates at the National Conference of the Party and in those we’ve been having in the journalists union branches.

The establishment of clear institutional spaces for the press is unavoidable to block the path of interference and interventions that alter its content and functions, above all in the Cuba that reassesses its structures and in which the Party and the institutions adjust their links and connections with society.

This is happening as the Revolution updates it economic model as the first step towards gradual modifications. Here, the responsibility falls on us to contribute to the necessary political consensus and awaken the professional vigilance needed to avoid distortions of their scope and motivations – as we’re already doing, not without difficulties and misunderstandings.

We cannot ignore the fact that the Revolution is about to enter its most difficult trial by fire: the disappearance of its generation of historical leaders. Meanwhile we are gradually, though inexorably, losing the Cuban media’s monopoly of influence as a result of the rise of the internet.

In this readjustment the Cuban press must clear the way for the promotion of civic debate and revolutionary counterattack. It doesn’t matter who barks, Sancho[4]: conviction in the face of distortion should be our watchword.

__________________
Translator's footnotes:

[1] The pro-independence and social justice party founded by, among others, independence leader Jose Marti. 

[2] Presumably a reference to revolutionaries who lost heart when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Cuban Revolution entered its post-Soviet “Special Period” crisis. 

[3] The US coastline lies 150km north of Cuba. 

[4] From a well-known passage in Miguel Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote: “The dogs are barking, Sancho, it’s a sign that we’re moving”.

Translation: The hypothetical country

The first National Conference of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) has concluded. The final version of the resolution on the PCC's work, adopted by conference delegates, has been published in Spanish on the PCC website.

There are amendments to most of the draft paragraphs and five new paragraphs have been added. I've translated the draft document and will now compare the draft with the final version word for word. When I've finished I'll post a translation of the final document to this blog. Meanwhile I'll continue to post other translations now that I've settled into my new home.

I'll start by translating a few excellent commentaries by Luis Sexto that have appeared in Juventud Rebelde in recent weeks (Sexto also wrote a commentary on the PCC Conference for the Progreso Weekly website for a mainly Cuban-American audience. You can read it here). Below, Sexto takes issue with leftist critics of the PCC leadership's political line.

Some Cuban revolutionaries both within and outside the PCC think the PCC leadership is conceding too much to market mechanisms when it should be looking to radical alternatives to hyper-centralised, top-down economic management, such as a far more sweeping "cooperativisation" of the state enterprise sector than that foreshadowed in the Guidelines adopted by the Sixth PCC Congress (though it should be noted that the Guidelines, sensibly, leave much room for interpretation — and experimentation — in this regard).

The mood of the majority of Cuban revolutionaries seems to be much closer, as far as can be judged from Australia, to Sexto's opinions here than, for example, those of Pedro Campos, a Havana-based former member of the PCC who left the party on his own initiative. After decades of idealistic experimentation, many are wary of placing hopes on somewhat speculative, if not utopian, visions of the transitional society in Cuba's conditions. "Principled pragmatism" is probably the best way of describing the centre of gravity of revolutionary opinion in Cuba today.

Yet the Guidelines cannot be implemented without a big dose of experimentation. Unlike in the 1970s, when Cuba turned to the Soviet bloc for assistance, there are no manuals to turn to. Cuba has only its own experiences and what can be gleaned from others without falling into the error of mechanical copying. Within this necessary experimentation there will be room, though not as much as some would like, for local initiatives that combine dreams with practicalities in an alchemy of socialist construction out of which a chemistry may emerge.

The hypothetical country

By Luis Sexto, Juventud Rebelde, January 12, 2012

Translation: Marce Cameron

On the first of January[1] some friends and I raised our glasses and one of them, stepping forward, proposed a toast to the country we’d like Cuba to be. Another, however, outstretched his arm as if to restrain the collective gesture and issued a correction: “Let’s toast the country we need.” We obliged. It was a most apt suggestion. Because “the country that we want” is as numerous and contradictory as the desire that it expresses. As diverse as the ideas and the proposals of each and every one of us.

This is readily apparent. As one can read on certain web pages, Cuba has taken refuge in the land of the hypothetical, of conflicting hypotheses. That’s to say – and here I’m just repeating what nearly all of us are aware of – some wish Cuba to be ruled by capitalism and others imagine it as in the lullabies of petty-bourgeois nationalism. On the other hand, an extreme left – an extreme that implicitly defines itself as intransigent and discontented – wants Cuba to be a laboratory of a socialism as theoretical and it is hectic, ignoring the material and political conditions in which Cuba strives for the updating of its economy and society and disregarding, above all, the fact that this “deep socialism”, “ultra-socialism”, has never been put into practice, or at least it does not seem to have survived the experiment.

In contrast, “the country that we need” is a category that, despite its imprecision, corresponds more unanimously to the objective urgencies, to the general internal deficiencies and the global geopolitical situation. Let’s ask ourselves if it’s not pertinent, then, to promote a social order that, as well as sustaining the basic principles of social justice and independence, sets out, at the cost of risks and audacity, to provide the means and the spaces for society as a whole to overcome its economic urgencies.

Without any pretense to being an expert in complexities, I suggested some months back that our society, faced with the wear and tear of the Special Period and the survival of methods that had proved ineffective or erroneous even before this period, needed a “period of transition” towards socialism[2]. A socialism that, what’s more, nobody has managed to define nor definitively achieve in practice. Because of this, it will have to continually adjust itself to the demands of reality. Or does anyone think it possible to perpetuate the model, the interpretation of socialism that fell apart with the collapse of the Soviet Union? Let’s take into account that Cuba is not only surrounded by water along its coastline, it is also encircled by the hostility of voracious powers for which war is second nature.

This is a necessary period of transition during which, without renouncing social justice and independence – for me, two non-negotiable conquests – the country can develop its productive forces, even adopting market mechanisms while being conscious of their limits. This shocks both bureaucratic ideology and that of leftist intransigence. And, in parallel, the decentralisation of society, in such a way that the state continues to be the guarantor of an equilibrium between individual and collective interests.

The above is understood. I acknowledge that each has their own point of view and expresses it. I don’t think it wise, however, to disregard truths that have been verified theoretically and practically. Poverty, shortages, deficiencies, immobility, improvisation and voluntarism are not the premises upon which to construct socialism at one blow. Pure socialism, adhering to the most revolutionary ideals without developing the productive forces, without economic growth? We’d have to speak about the ideas and affirmations of Marx, who refrained from subscribing to extremes and the absolute.

The country that we need, then, is the country that we need in order to – without falling into a vicious cycle – resolve necessities and ingrain in every citizen the idea that socialism does not mean giving away everything, nor equalising everything. It is a permanent and gradual conquest from “the realm of necessity[3]” towards the “realm of freedom”. And for this, every one of us will have to have the space to contribute to the satisfaction of our own needs and, in a solidaristic and creative conjunction, collaborate to resolve those of others. Perhaps in this way we might be able to move toward what amounts to a superior society, and achieve the economic legitimacy that would make it easier to keep in check those who want the country to fragment into classes, divided between a few rich people and those who are left with nothing. 
_____________________
Footnotes to the translation

[1] New Year’s Day in the Christian calendar, but also the anniversary of dictator Fulgencio Batista’s flight from Cuba in 1959 as the people rose up in revolution.

[2] In Cuba, “socialism” refers not to a fully communist society but to either the post-capitalist, socialist-oriented society in general (such as Cuba today) or a relatively developed and consolidated form of such a transitional society. It seems Sexto is using the word in the latter sense. Such a society has been anticipated by Marxist theory but, as Sexto points out, has yet to be achieved in practice. Cuba is still a long way from socialism in this sense.

[3] This is an allusion to a passage in Marx’s Capital (Vol. 3, Ch. 48) in which he contrasts the “realm of necessity” of class society with the “realm of freedom” he envisaged in a fully communist society: “[T]he realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.”

Translation: The right to express an opinion

Granma letter to the editor

Extend the right to express an opinion to daily life

By A. J. Perez Perez, August 5, 2011

Very important steps are being taken to consolidate the gains of the Revolution and to reaffirm its socialist character. Our top leaders have spoken about the need to do away with old formulas and prescriptions that hinder and weigh down the economy and life in general in the present circumstances. Despite the calls for change, we’re all aware of the meetings for the sake of meetings and the passivity of many functionaries, with most of the time spent listening to the same things that have been said before and hearing about the same unfulfilled commitments.

In his July 26 speech, compañero Vice President Jose Ramon Machado Ventura pointed out the need to eradicate these evils at once. Things are changing on our blockaded island and people feel it in the streets, though the pace of change may not be as rapid as we'd like or in the manner that many of us long for.

Our President Raul Castro was emphatic in stressing, in the Second Communist Party Central Committee Plenum held recently, that any disagreement within the Permanent Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines would be analysed rather than being tossed aside, thus ensuring a free discussion in which everyone can say what they think and want. As Raul said afterwards in the National Assembly this also applies to daily life in Cuba, so that Cubans may have a space in which to exercise their right to express an opinion in an appropriate manner and with due respect. 

I’m one of those who ask that our Round Table current affairs TV programme gives voice to opinions regarding national themes. There are people with a lot to say, with many ideas to contribute, who deserve to be heard and must be listened to. We mustn’t fear fair remarks or justified criticism, and if such criticism is constructive, educational and puts forward solutions then all the better.

I urge that we create a mechanism for delivering the population’s daily complaints of institutional abuse suffered at the hands of functionaries who occupy posts that were created to serve the people. Such a mechanism would deliver these complaints to every level as required and would be committed to nothing other than the truth and justice. Unfortunately, and I speak from personal experience, a large proportion of the complaints that are made are lost in complacency and indolence.

It’s infuriating and at the same time sad that cases published in the national press elicit a speedy response following their publication, despite the fact that those making the complaints went back and forth for months, and in some cases years, trying to get their problems resolved. Most of the time the higher-ups took note of these cases (which often waited on their own signature) only when the whole of Cuba knew about them. Unfortunately, there are many functionaries who cease to function when faced with problems whose resolution should be straightforward.

Everyone must contribute to what the country and the people need in these times. Everyone must be listened to. Sometimes, as Jose Marti said, trenches of ideas are worth more than trenches of stone.       

Comment: Raul Castro's National Assembly speech

Raul Castro gave a brief closing speech to the National Assembly on August 1. Earlier, the Assembly had voted unanimously to approve the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines for the Party and the Revolution, on the recommendation of the Sixth Communist Party Congress in April. 

This means that the Guidelines are now state policy. In his speech, Raul said that a special National Assembly commission has been established to "oversee the process of updating the economic model" and that one of its tasks would be to "draft the integral theoretical conceptualisation of the Cuban socialist economy", which "will require much time and effort".

The Guidelines are not a theoretical document but a practical one. While there are references to key principles, such as the socialist distribution formula "to each according to their work" and not allowing the concentration of productive property ownership, there is no coherent theoretical framework and no discussion of the historical experiences and lessons that underpin the Guidelines. 

Presumably, this is because the PCC leadership felt that the most important thing was to strive for consensus on what needs to be done, on a set of tasks and objectives that chart a course towards a new Cuban socialist-oriented economic model, and that an overly theoretical document may well have muddied the waters rather than served clarity at this stage. In the unfolding of the renovation process, the sequencing and timing of the revolutionary leadership's initiatives, including those related to consensus-building, are paramount.  

On the other hand, the PCC leadership has not ignored the theoretical and historical questions involved. Raul took up some of these issues in the main report to the Sixth PCC Congress in April, as well as in other speeches. Neither have the theoretical issues and historical lessons been absent from the public debate, as can be appreciated from the translations of commentaries published on this blog. Yet an "integral theoretical conceptualisation", as Raul puts it, is still a pending task. 

There are several reasons why such a document is needed. 

For Cuba's revolutionaries, it would further the process of striving for clarity and consensus on the broad outlines of the new model that is beginning to emerge. By drawing on the theoretical and practical legacy of revolutionary Cuba's own rich experience of building socialism over the past five decades, as well as those of other socialist revolutions past and present, it could help safeguard the renewal process from the danger, inherent in allowing greater scope for market mechanisms, of a pragmatic drift in the direction of capitalist restoration. It would arm Cuba's revolutionaries ideologically in the face of such pressures. 

At the same time, a clear theoretical justification for the renovation process could also help guard against the opposite tendency, that is, for the renovation process to lose momentum because of unjustified fears, cynically exploited by those in the administrative apparatus that want to preserve their fiefdoms and illicit privileges derived from corruption, that any concessions to the market imply the abandonment of "socialism".

In his August 1 speech, Raul had this blunt message for such officials: "We shall be patient but also persevering in the face of resistance to change, whether conscious or unconscious. I warn you that bureaucratic resistance to the strict fulfilment of the Congress decisions, which have the massive support of the people, is futile."

Finally, such a document would be part of the legacy of the historicos, Fidel's and Raul's generation of revolutionaries, to the newer generations of revolutionaries who will have to carry through the renovation process and put their own stamp on it. It would also be of great value, and no doubt of great interest, to revolutionary socialists internationally, as well as to the Cuba solidarity movement.

Yet the need for theoretical clarification is far from the most pressing challenge confronting the renovation process. As Raul stressed on August 1: "The greatest obstacle which we face in terms of implementing the decisions of the Sixth Congress is the psychological barrier created by inertia, resistance to change, pretence or double standards, indifference and insensitivity, a barrier which we are obliged to surmount with constancy and firmness, starting with Party, state and government leaders in the various national, provincial and municipal bodies."

He concluded that "without a change of mentality, we will be incapable of carrying out the changes needed to guarantee the sustainability or, what amounts to the same thing, the irrevocability of the socialist character of the political and social system enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic." 

Key to this change in mentality is respect for differences of opinion: "All opinions must be discussed and when a consensus is not reached, the differences will be raised before higher bodies authorised to make decisions. Knowing Cubans and given its importance, I repeat: all opinions must be discussed and when consensus is not reached, the differences will be raised before higher bodies authorized to make decisions and, moreover, nobody is entitled to prevent this."

An official translation of Raul's August 1 speech is here. It's a short speech that's well worth reading in full.

Luis Sexto: Horizontal socialism

As a rule I post only what is unavailable elsewhere, i.e. my own translations and commentaries. Here is a rare exception. I've just returned from visiting family in Melbourne and will resume my translations shortly. This perceptive commentary by Cuban journalist Luis Sexto was first published on the bilingual Progreso Weekly website in both Spanish and English under the heading, "Back to the bench or keep bumbling".

As usual, Sexto's perceptive observations reveal much about the internal dynamics of the renewal process. Sexto's judgement that "the best ideology is not one that promises paradise but that builds it" sums up nicely the principled pragmatism of those who strive to carry through the renovation that has begun. As I've argued elsewhere, the basic line-up of forces is the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) leadership together with genuine revolutionaries within and outside the PCC against conservative elements, particularly those entrenched in the administrative apparatus, that resist change. To prevail in the face of such resistance requires nothing less than the dismantling of much of what Cubans call "the bureaucracy" and the simultaneous deepening of participatory socialist democracy, above all in the sphere of economic management. 

As Sexto says, "whoever does do not change his mindset and stands as an obstacle to horizontal socialism, that is, democratic and productive socialism, will have to stand aside or be displaced." The "old man" does not appear to be a reference to Fidel Castro, but to those Cubans with a conservative mentality who are an obstacle to "horizontal socialism". 

Back to the bench or keep bumbling

By Luis Sexto, Progreso Weekly website, July 12, 2011

Translation: Progreso Weekly

HAVANA - At a recent debate organized by the journal Temas (Topics) in Havana on politicization and depoliticization in Cuban society, one of the listeners asked this reporter, who was part of the panel, the meaning of the double standard. I answered with a title by José Ingenieros; it means “simulation in the struggle for life.” He countered, saying he could define it with less bombast: It is the divorce between the leaders and the led, he said.

Better to explain it as the divorce between economic structures and the aspirations of citizens, I replied. Because, ultimately, leaders and officials act as people inserted in a certain order that eventually affects human behavior. And I say this without subtracting responsibility from those who take advantage, for their own benefit, of the dogmatic and bureaucratic nature that conditions so-called real socialism.

The double standard, then, is a result of an excess of politicization that, counter to the renewal process, insists on prevailing over the consciences so that the double standard (to say what you don't think and think what you don't say) may continue as a kind of distortion of politics and ethics.

Politics, among many meanings drawn from the theory of state and law, is related to the art or science of governance. So, the political attitude of the citizens must be to accept and support the program of the ruling party and work for its fulfillment or freely criticize its inconsistencies.

So far, however, politics has been understood by us as a kind of ritual, a repetition of slogans that evaluates the commitment of people. That kind of “super ego” that hangs over people's conscience has been, in essence, the work of a total ideologization of human actions.

So, when the Government and the Communist Party today ask cadres and functionaries, even ordinary people, to change their mindset, they are proposing to change the way to deal with society, relationships, the economy, politics and law, and light a fire under “the old days,” an allusion to the people burdened by experiences and reflexes that prompt them to act and speak “as I did” or “as I said before.”

Everything in Cuba today is a renewal, a negation preceding a rebirth conditioned by the needs and certainty of the present. But habit and the interests twisted in so many years of ruling, rather than governing, refuse to fall away. And the committed observer appreciates the divorce – since we started talking about divorce – between the corrections and the solutions that are adopted, the doctrine that is disseminated and the application (somewhat reluctant and tortuous) of the project of economic upgrading that, of necessity, must pass through a reformulation of attitudes and political activism.

It would be a fateful mistake for us to forget that the survival of the ideals and achievements of the revolution, including the socialist objectives, is crystallized and entrenched in our national unity. And that it will have to coalesce within diversity and be protected by effective constitutional and legal rights.

Raul Castro seemed very confident, and spoke clearly during the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party, when he stated that national unity, so often invoked and needed in the past 50 years, is formed by the conjunction of believers, atheists, Freemasons, santeros, whites, blacks and mestizos, of all the Cubans who, seen through a glass made clear by reason and goodwill, may not be overlooked or discriminated against or privileged by their beliefs or philosophies, or by their higher or lower economic status or social prestige.

But who can change, through persuasion, the prevailing views of a state apparatus that is bureaucratized even to the manner of dress, and that, in influential numbers, is accustomed to raising its hand in token of consent, and then submitting a problem to every solution, because it feels its power is threatened if the land is divided, or if private workers or cooperatives proliferate, or if each citizen freely decides to attend or not the union meeting or the street rally, or guard duty for the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution.

What would happen, for example, if an institution were to include, among the requirements for working or enrolling in a school or university, a vow "not to profess any religious beliefs and to commit to hold the post unconditionally,” i.e., to remain there forever?

Wouldn't that institution try to delegitimize the discourse of the country's president and secretary general of the ruling party? Viewed with a critical mind, these practices would negate the true revolutionary humanism, and their extreme demands would generate a double standard. Who could stop anyone from saying that they're atheists and then lighting a candle to St. Lazarus at home?

Who doesn't know that unconditionality to men and institutions keeps freedom stuck to the ceiling and that, faced with any adverse circumstance, any questions or desire, the individuals thus imprisoned can resort only to suicide or defection?

I believe that this rejection of the declared political will to leave behind what is outdated and failed, what has been the cause of poverty, emigration or depoliticization, is a contribution of those who refuse to believe that the best ideology is not one that promises paradise but that builds it. It does not create problems but solves them in harmony, without pressure.

Cuba is still manageable, however. It does not function in chaos, despite the appearances that are magnified by enemies and minimized by friends. And this writer, in contact with hundreds of compatriots in the archipelago, can assure you that the reserves of ethics and genuine commitment are valuable enough to merit emerging to the light. The proof: Cuban society remains standing and tranquil.

But “the old man” will have to stand aside, no matter his age, because I know young people whose thought is as rigid as the lighthouse on El Morro. And we will have to accept that whoever does do not change his mindset and stands as an obstacle to horizontal socialism, that is, democratic and productive socialism, will have to stand aside or be displaced.

Cuba's main problem, as I see it, is synthesized in a baseball analogy: those who grew used to batting toward third will have trouble batting to first when tactical circumstances demand it. And the manager's book will pass sentence: back to the bench, this game is not for you.

Translation: An opinion on the Cuban press

To carry through the urgent renovation of Cuba's socialist project, Cuba's revolutionaries must harness the untapped potential of the country's mass communications media as a tool for socialist construction. An excellent summary of the achievements and challenges is the following commentary by Felipe de J. Perez Cruz, President of the National Association of Historians in Havana. 

This commentary is insightful not only because of its in-depth analysis of the Cuban media in relation to the renewal process, but because it touches on the reasons why Soviet Stalinism crumbled at the beginning of the 1990s. The Cuban view, or views, of this process and its underlying causes should be of interest to socialists everywhere. 

In the opinion of de J. Perez Cruz, "The more the counterrevolutionary process that led to the disappearance of the USSR and the socialist bloc is studied, the more we convince ourselves that its triumph was not in the dismantling and disqualification of history, politics and the socialist society in themselves, but in how the machinery of imperialist ideological subversion coordinated its attack on the objective weaknesses — subjectivised at the level of consciousness and mass social psychology — that really did exist in the party and the bureaucratic system, in the privileges of the governing elite, and in the unsatisfied demands [of the masses]. This includes the bombastic and apologetic press that characterized the communications policy of self-proclaimed 'real socialism'."

The Spanish original is accompanied by footnotes to references, which I've included in the translation for those that read Spanish.   

An opinion on the Cuban press

By Felipe de J. Perez Cruz, President, National Association of Historians, Havana 

Rebelion.org website, June 6, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron
 

In Cuba today, two dissimilar political processes are taking place simultaneously. The Sixth Communist Party (PCC) Congress continues in the working out of how to implement the [Economic and Social Policy] Guidelines approved in every sector and work collective. The recent 8th Plenum of the National Committee of the Cuban Journalists Union (UPEC) resolved to "overcome mediocrity, boring and tedious practices that contribute nothing and achieve an acute, enjoyable, investigative, analytical and critical journalism."[1]  

The Plenum brought journalists together to participate in a profound discussion of the problems and responsibilities of the sector during the preparatory process for the PCC National Conference called for January 28. I think this is an excellent proposal if it is accompanied by a fluid interaction with what society thinks and demands.       

The Cuban press

Our press has the merit of being truthful, of never lying. It's a noble press in an international journalistic context in which, with few exceptions, falsity and manipulation seem the norm. This is a privilege we enjoy, and it's not a gift of good fortune: it's due to the work and the ethics of the professionals and workers of this sector.      

The men and women of journalism maintained the vitality of the country's main media outlets in the most difficult and complex moments of the [post-Soviet] economic crisis when there was a lack of paper, the technology suffered from lack of spare parts and investment and fuel shortages meant that we only had brief periods of electrical supply. Back then the revolutionary press called for unity and resistance, a journalism that emulated the dispatches of war correspondents writing from the trenches. The numbers of pages and print runs of newspapers and magazines were reduced and a good part of the sector was absorbed by agriculture, production and defence.

The Revolution has always paid special attention to the sphere of information, its professionals and workers. It never ceased training the next generation of journalists and communicators in the seven university faculties that teach these courses nationwide, and as soon as the country began to leave behind the depths of the crisis sustained investments were made in the technological basis of the sector. The national computerisation programs gave priority to this sector, to the editorial collectives and to individual journalists. The technological base of the journalism sector is substantially superior to that of specialists in the education, science and economic sectors.

The training of a sector of professionals and workers with a revolutionary tradition, sustained commitment, a proven ability to overcome gigantic technological difficulties — in which new generations have emerged that in principle must be better educated than the preceding generations, and that have been privileged in recent years with solid investments in the sector — should be highly positive. However, the reality is that if our press does indeed maintain its undeniable revolutionary values, every day the people and the PCC leadership become more dissatisfied with majority of the publications and journalists. I agree with the self-criticism of UPEC president Tubal Paez when he says that in general, our journalism lacks elegance, ingenuity, charm, grace, spark, humour and ideas that fascinate, attract and engage.[2]      

The demands for improvement

The demands for the transformation of the press to bring it closer to reality, for it to be more analytical, more proactive and to reflect in a more objective and balanced way what is really happening in the country are not new. Commander in Chief Fidel Castro insisted on the need for a press in the spirit of Marti and Lenin, on various occasions, in meetings with journalists, in congresses and PCC analyses.          

Now the demand for a quality and effective press has been placed on the order of the day with the proposals of Comrade Raul Castro, first PCC secretary and president of our country. In the Main Report to the Sixth PCC Congress held April 16-19, Raul called on the media to leave behind, definitively, the habit of triumphalism and shrillness in addressing the national reality. The First Party Secretary urged journalists to create works that through their content and style capture attention and stimulate discussion.          

Nobody doubts the decisive role that the revolutionary press is called upon to play through clarification and objective dissemination, constant and critical, in the building of socialism. The press is indispensable in the development of socialist political culture, the culture of accountability, of debate and informed dialogue. It is above all a collective educator and must do this without sterile didacticism, respecting the intelligence of the superior social being forged by the Revolution. 

The evaluation of objective and above all subjective difficulties is well advanced. It's inconceivable that most of the time journalists have difficulty accessing information in a timely manner, in the face of insurmountable functionaries who violate the right of the people to be informed, and that blockade the free exercise of the social mission of revolutionary journalism. For no few compañeros of the sector, the lack of communication and information explains the dissemination of material that is sometimes boring, improvised or superficial.

There's no point repeating the speeches of Fidel and Raul on these and other themes, and that the cadres who are directly responsible refuse to comply with or obstruct in practice the will and the political orientation of the country's leadership, its democratic essence and the responsibility it holds. In the opinion of Tubal Paez, they have a negative influence when it comes to old styles and methods which must be eradicated, and that to some extent discourage very good professional desires.[3]

These problems weigh heavily on the sector and its results, but the question in my opinion is not reduced to the matter of cadres with misguided attitudes, functionaries that refuse [to comply with the PCC leadership's directives] and bureaucrats that blockade or obstruct.

I think it's very easy to find a culprit in the visibility and the responsibility of a functionary. Our socialist democracy is conceived, designed and constitutionally empowered so that those who are led, decide: a manager can do things or undo them to the extent they are permitted to do so by their administrative and/or political subordinates and by their revolutionary [i.e. PCC or communist youth organisation, the UJC] base committees.

We know that voluntarism and authoritarian styles of leadership have their complement in the philosophy of avoiding problems and accommodating to what is easy, evils that in recent years have contaminated the spheres of work and intellectual activity. And if the press suffers from boredom, it's because some of the professionals and workers that must transform it have conformed and accommodated to the worst schemas of inertia. "The good journalist", says Tubal Paez, "cannot be obliged by anyone to be boring, greasy, mediocre, superficial or careless in what they do, unless they really are such a person".[4]

The decisions of the PCC on information policy cannot continue to be flouted, and this cannot be resolved by Raul and the comrades in the Party leadership. This is a political and ideological struggle in the heart of the press work collectives, in every one of the newspapers, magazines and news programmes. This is the arena of a revolutionary struggle, of exigency and education of the management councils [of the publications], the cells and committees of the PCC and the UJC, of the trade union and the base associations of the UPEC.        

Looking within

It's my view that in the face of these obstacles the press publications and their professional staff have achieved varied results. In general we don't see evidence of the sector "looking within" and the reason for this lack of introspection. I've observed how sectors of public opinion — in the capital and other provinces — see as exceptional those newspapers, magazines and news programmes that do satisfy their expectations. We have in the national and regional publications compañeros who are singled out by the people for their solid work. These are very experienced journalists, but there is no lack of good examples among the new and very new promotions who have recently graduated from the universities.

Public opinion sees a difference between the dynamism and quality of radio journalism compared with that of the other media. There are TV channels with news shows of notable quality and an excellent use of local talent. There are newspapers and news programmes that have been able to multiply, via the possibilities of the internet, what they offer their audiences, but it seems to me that with similar technological and professional potential the majority maintain a pale and minimal web presence. The impact of various personal blogs of companeros from the press is known, but many others languish in cyberspace due to lack of new content. Fortunately other sectors of Cuban society, in particular university students, are in the vanguard of a vigorous movement of revolutionary bloggers.              

The general appeals and criticisms don't do justice to those who, despite the obstacles, march in the vanguard. Specifying with knowledge and arguments what is done well promotes the discipline of quality and appeals to the conscience of the revolutionaries.     

Faced with the polarised results that we see, we need to know what those who are directly involved think and do. The views of Tubal Paez that I quoted were published widely in the Cuban press. Without doubt they express a serious self-criticism [of the Cuban press] that incites controversial debate. I waited for several days to read the commentaries and positions that would be expressed by the compañeros of the press in response, but at the time of writing my expectations have not been met. Must we wait for what is said and agreed to in the assemblies of the UPEC? Why not express them in the press itself, in response to such strident criticism as that made by the president of this organisation?   

The need to boost the professionalism and knowledge of our journalists has been stressed, but such a formulation does not satisfy the breadth of the questions which, for those of us outside the profession, flow from the deficiencies of journalistic work, the handling of information, the domination of one or another journalistic genre and the indispensable work of specialised journalism.     

I think that the imbalance that many of us perceive between the quantity and quality of the international information compared with the national is not explained solely by the existence of a certain policy of information priority. What's also lacking is knowledge and the study of the Cuban reality and, above all, journalistic styles hat are as bureaucratic or more so than the bureaucrats themselves. There are no few examples of facile and worse schematics.

The coverage of activities generally concentrates on what those who preside over an event say, quoting what they said in their opening or closing remarks, photos or film footage are taken of this person and then some more photos or a pan from the ground up and this is where the job of the journalist ends, who then hurriedly moves on to another "newsworthy" event. What really happens, what the ordinary protagonists say and do, are unimportant.

The journalists who cover the opening and the conclusion, who follow the chiefs and not the people who make history, solve everything by expanding on a quote from what the person in charge said. Before their eyes is the marvel of the news in which its protagonists aren't seen. Since they "don't have time" to stay and participate in the event, they alienate us from what is most valuable, which is the pulse of the concrete subjects of the event, their sentiments, ideas and contributions. Such a superficial view impedes the practice of a journalism of opinion that weighs up what transpires and takes sides. This weak praxis also has it unavoidable consequences of professional impoverishment, whether desired or not, of those that practice such schematic styles of journalism.

I know of news coverage in which the journalist arrives on the scene without having even the remotest idea of what took place. The argument that they were sent by their editors without knowing what they were going to cover speaks volumes not only of the irresponsibility of these editors; it also has as its counterpart the individual ethic of accountability and respect that every professional should ask of themselves.

The journalist that follows the scent of reality, that discovers and broaches themes, that investigates and with shield on arm emulates those who battle giants, is a rare species, almost extinct. Could this be solely due to the work schedule, cluttered with tasks already drawn up in detail? Does it have something to do with this or that editorial line? 

Specialised journalism doesn't dig deep enough. We ask ourselves why the sports journalists exercise criticism — of both merit as well as mistakes and nonconformism — of the National Institute of Sports and its directors, of the director of a provincial agency, a baseball team, about the performance of this or that technical team, yet rarely is the same done in relation to public health, education, the economy and the material output of an entity, with a minister, the director of a hospital, a school or a factory.    

Sports journalism is not without room for improvement, but the first thing that meets the eye is the high level of professionalism of the majority of companeros involved, from the esteemed veterans to the novices. They know what they're talking about and can discuss with the sport's managers and specialists what they disagree on. Do their journalistic colleagues in other sectors and branches have this training and this willingness to debate which we're so grateful for?   

Undoubtedly, a personal rapport and frequent contact with the cadres and specialists responsible for this or that issue is vital. Even more indispensable may be individual study, self-preparation, a systematic reading of the topic in question. The broad general knowledge and cultural level of the journalist, independently of what they report on, is a requirement that must be continually developed, and those most responsible for this are the journalists themselves.  

Almost the same

I'm convinced that if tomorrow the problems of bureaucratic control were resolved, and if there were access to and communication with the heads of entities, cadres and functionaries, we'd still be very far from the revolutionary press that we need. It would be better informed by the state and government institutions, but it would lack the decisive vision and the rich contradiction of civil society.      

Raul Castro and the PCC leadership's insistence, in the process of the Sixth PCC Congress, on considering the value of each and every one of the opinions expressed [in the public debates] confirms a willingness of socialist democracy that was unknown in the practice of the communist parties that came to power in Europe and Asia in the 20th century, whose tradition was centred on a schematic overestimation of the collective viewpoint — essentially that of the state and the party — over individual opinion. How can we express and develop the right that has been conquered, our freedom as subjects in and of the Revolution, if we do not take this participatory path traced out by the Sixth Congress? Such a profound and decisive party praxis is an invitation to reflection and a change of mentality. It's an essential key for theoretical debate and the perspective for how to do our journalism.

When is the press going to pay attention to the need to privilege in its work the intelligence, experience and the empirical evidence of our humble and wise citizens? Who can affirm that in Cuba everyone agrees or that we go along with the responses or approaches of the managers and those responsible for this or that entity or state or government agency? When are the disagreements and debates within the revolutionary camp going to emerge in the media?         

Is the press not interested in the precise data that our workers, technicians and economists have about the problems of production and the economy, the data and the statistics produced by science and that aren't necessarily incorporated into the official statistics, the qualitative studies, the projections about the beautiful realities that we have, and also the spots and ugly growths that we suffer?   

When are our journalists going to facilitate — or better, lead — a series of debates and critiques that go to the heart of society without us having sufficient spaces to inform, specify, clarify, agree and rectify? Why lose the press as a public square for our self-education in the socialist morality and civility of saying and sharing what we think?

Faced with indolence and silence, I'm among those who prefer to share an appraisal, to convince or be convinced of an erroneous or imprecise judgement. I know that this preference is shared by many companeros, as revealed in the success of participation and its acceptance in the Granma letters to the editor pages [initiated in early 2008].    

Real dangers

The Cuban press faces not only constructive and educative tasks. Daily, almost hourly, our society is bombarded by the gigantic machinery of global capitalist propaganda. In the chinks of our deficiencies, in the constant misrepresentation of the reality of the country, campaigns aimed directly at subverting us politically, culturally and ideologically are armed, which also aim to discredit the revolutionary project, fracture international solidarity and isolate us.     

The dangers we confront in the ideological, political and cultural struggle are real and to underestimate them would be unpardonable and irresponsible. Today and for a long time to come, the noble mission of journalism will be a substantial part — unavoidably — of the ideological arm wrestling between the enemy [news] services which try to impose an agenda of lies, and our revolutionary press. They impose on us a media war, psychological aggression and their dirty work [i.e. subversive activities sponsored by the US government]. And the Revolution cannot be too naive in the face of such powerful and heartless enemies.

I understand the justified protective measures we must take, and I'm aware of the fair concern of many compañeros. However the need to defend the spiritual life of Cubans does not justify closing ourselves off from the necessary changes; it imposes precisely the need to carry through these changes as a key part of the strategy for victory. We have to explain, reassure and demonstrate the strength we possess, and therein lie the opportunities for the Revolution to prevail in the press and in all spheres.            

The reality of a besieged fortress leads to the "siege" mentality, and this is precisely the fear that the most intelligent architects of the anti-Cuban aggression try to turn to their advantage, those who talk of combining the continuity of the military-economic pressure — hard power — with building bridges, of subversion and ideological-cultural penetration: "soft power". 

We walk a path, if we're talking about the press, that is unprecedented in the building of socialism. The historical experiences in this regard, in the countries that have attempted revolutionary socialist processes, have only definitively marked out the extremes: bureaucratic control of the press or a liberal opening that is essentially anti-socialist and counterrevolutionary.    

What immediately comes to mind is the painful experience of so-called glasnost — transparency — in the context of the process of treachery [to the socialist cause] that the Soviet rectification or perestroika became. This is a reference point that shows  us the capacity for ideological-cultural dismantling that the subversive agencies — the CIA and its emulators within the so-called intelligence community of the US and NATO — and its methods of coordination and multiplication of the gigantic propagandistic machinery of transnational imperialism.        

It's not enough to appreciate the results of the irresponsibility and political adventurism of the Soviet leadership at the close of the 20th century. The key problem, of practical value, is to reveal the source of imperialism's effectiveness in the 1980s, after the persistent failures of its sieges and aggression during the 1970s. 

The more the counterrevolutionary process that led to the disappearance of the USSR and the socialist bloc is studied, the more we convince ourselves that its triumph was not in the dismantling and disqualification of history, politics and the socialist society in themselves, but in how the machinery of imperialist ideological subversion coordinated its attack on the objective weaknesses — subjectivised at the level of consciousness and mass social psychology — that really did exist in the party and the bureaucratic system, in the privileges of the governing elite, and in the unsatisfied demands [of the masses]. This includes the bombastic and apologetic press that characterised the communications policy of self-proclaimed "real socialism".

With regard to weaknesses and threats, we have to identify our differences, as long as we also acknowledge our strengths and opportunities. In contrast with the Soviet experience, the course of the Cuban Revolution during the final decade of the last century and its arrival in the present century corresponds to a very different objective situation and political-moral setting.          

Cuban realities

Cuba understood in time — even before perestroika emerged on the scene in the Soviet Union and raised hopes — the need to initiate its rectification of errors and negative tendencies, to criticise and resolve the most serious problems, above all ideological, that were incubating themselves via the mechanical copying of the model that was already deteriorating in the USSR. As we know, not everything was resolved. We lacked time for the maturation, through decisive transformations, of many of the things we objected to, but the fundamental principle of carrying out necessary and possible changes within socialism [i.e. the socialist-oriented society — translator's note] was firmly established.

The impacts and consequences of the economic crisis and the stepping up of the policy of blockade and subversion by the US government reinforced old problems and created new conflicts, yet despite this we were able to save the Revolution. The line of march decided on by the 1991 Fourth PCC Congress and ratified by the Fifth Congress in 1997 allowed for the preservation of socialism and its principal conquests, made possible by the massive support of all patriots, of the immense majority of the population.  

The area of the class struggle in Cuba today is the most complex that it has had to confront in the revolutionary process of the past half century. The weaknesses are connected to the old and yet-to-be-overcome, as well as to "the new" and not necessarily progressive that has been incorporated from the deterioration suffered [during the post-Soviet Special Period — translator's note] and the growth of market relations. The weaknesses include organisational and political expressions of the Soviet model that urge the negation of dialectics, with manifestations of the social conduct, morality and bourgeois corruption inherent in the capitalist mode of production, whose existence we will never conform to.   

Those who entrench themselves in the siege mentality — and worse, those who cower full of pessimism — do not understand that in serenely reading the complexity of the conjuncture they begin the defense and the offensive struggle of revolutionary ideology and politics. The Economic and Social Policy Guidelines of the Party and the Revolution approved by the Sixth PCC Congress confirm this.  

In the mature Revolution that we have today there are sufficient strengths to deepen the rectifications and advances needed by the economy, society and the press that we're attending to without giving ground to bourgeois ideology and imperialism. The Revolution has multiplied ethics and the revolutionary spirit of the nation in terms of knowledge and culture. The Cubans of today have given — and offer daily — proof of their wisdom cultivated by revolutionary politics. This reality constitutes and characterises the revolutionary social being and is the most solid bulwark of socialism.

The struggle for ideological-cultural hegemony — well defined by Antonio Gramsci — is a pedagogical relation between the class contenders, and we can take up this challenge fully. We have enough leadership experience and clear ideas. Fidel made it clear half a century ago the breadth and the limits of the ideological struggle in Cuba: "Within the Revolution everything, against the Revolution, nothing."[5]   

Within the Revolution, not all of us react and think with the certainty that is needed in each moment. Those who don't agree with us on certain policies, those who are confused by hyper-criticism and ultraleft revolutionism, the pessimists, those deceived by enemy propaganda, must always be treated with respect, attention, persuasion and education. The directors and functionaries who are sickened with voluntarism, authoritarian and sterile centralism, the bureaucrats who obstruct are also our compañeros, and we can't forget this. There is still much harmful intolerance among us and, ultimately, the Revolution doesn't make us angels but men and women amid different visions, interests, contradictions, mistakes, successes, partial mistakes and partial successes. 

What is against the Revolution, no matter how hidden it may be, surfaces sooner or later. The antisocial nature of administrative corruption is not resistant to debate. The thief hidden in the leadership structures and in the bureaucracy is nothing more than a delinquent. The leap to the counterrevolution has no ethical justification, it lacks the most minimal historical or cultural awareness. The reduced fauna of anti-patriots, anexationists and mercenaries on the payroll of imperialism confirm, in their nauseating nature, the reality that I affirm: we face a battlefield that we know well, against individualism, egoism and treachery. A terrain that has has always been disputed and where in each moment we've been able to achieve victory.      

The press has much to offer in the creation of new spaces for pedagogical revolutionary construction, for ideological combat, counter-propaganda and the denunciation of the anti-Cuban campaigns and operations. I for one am fully confident of the capacity of the communications media professionals and workers to be and do what the needs of the revolutionary struggle in Cuba demand. It would be unjust not to recognise those who have insisted on doing this for a long time, and those who break the inertia and the barriers to join this struggle.

Footnotes [as in the Spanish text]

[1] Resolución final del VIII Pleno del Comité Nacional de la UPEC, Cubaperiodistas.cu, Lunes, 23 de mayo de 2011 http://www.cubaperiodistas.cu/noticias/mayo11/23/03.htm

[2] Miguel Torres Barbá: Frente al espejo: la prensa apuesta por ser más atractiva, AIN, Viernes, 13 de Mayo de 2011. http://www.tribuna.co.cu/etiquetas/2011/mayo/12/frente.html

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Fidel Castro Ruz: Palabras a los Intelectuales, 30 de junio de 1961 http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1961/esp/f300661e.html

Translation: Granma debate on Cuban media 2

Fidel & Raul visit Chavez in Havana, recovering from minor surgery 

My last post was titled "Granma debate on the Cuban media", and a debate implies an exchange of divergent opinions. So here is another opinion on the TV news and current affairs programme Mesa Redonda. It should be read together with the previous post. In a similar vein, you may like to read this excellent commentary by Cuban journalist Luis Sexto on the media in Cuba, written for and translated by the pro-revolution Miami-Havana website Progreso Weekly.

In other developments related to Cuba's socialist renewal, I'd like to draw attention to two commentaries that are also highly recommended if you have the time and interest, both published by Progreso Weekly. They relate to an important topic that I hope to delve into a little on this blog via selected translations: the evolving relationship between the Cuban Revolution and Cuban-Americans of various political persuasions in light of the debates and changes taking place on the island. Here, Havana University's Jesus Arboleya Cervera responds to the views expressed by Cuban-American capitalist Carlos Saladrigas, considered a "moderate" in relation to US-Cuba relations and a politically influential figure in the US. Here, Ramon de la Cruz Ochoa, a prominent Cuban lawyer, adds his own perceptive comments to the exchange.

Here is an Associated Press report on flourishing marketplaces in Havana thanks to the recent opening to self-employment.

If the Mesa Redonda talked about...

Letter to the editor by N. Páez del Amo, Granma, May 27, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

Allow me to disagree with the conclusion reached by L. Fleites Rivero in the letter "The Mesa Redonda must be more attractive". The experience of "freedom of expression" that took place in the old socialist bloc countries that you cite with fear has absolutely nothing to do with the present situation in our country. The explosion of journalistic trash at the end of the 1980s in some semi-official media of the then USSR took place under the auspices of the "glasnost" proclaimed by Mikhail Gorbachev. Firstly, it was orchestrated by elements opposed to socialism and secondly, it was hardly refuted or not at all by the state media, which allowed any malicious "oppositionist" to rave on as they pleased about the history of the USSR, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its historic leadership, splintering the unity of the Soviet peoples and without receiving the well-deserved and convincing response to such a diatribe as they should have.

The intention of our President [Raul Castro] when talking about diversity of opinion, about eradicating false unanimity and fostering open discussion is not in the least to hand over to imperialism the head of the Revolution on a silver platter, but precisely to strengthen our democratic mechanisms and unite the working class around the great work of socialist construction. Neither is the intention to turn [Mesa Redonda] into the court of an inquisition, as Taladrid commented. Certainly nothing is easy in this world when we're talking about changing ways of thinking, the way ahead is always sown with thorns and it's necessary to clear the path of these obstacles, wielding the truth, reason, sound judgement and well-founded opinions.

I think that the Mesa Redonda does not fully live up to its informative and educative mission in its present form.

Many people have, and I personally have had, disagreements with issues that have arisen yet I continue to support the political line of the [Cuban Communist] Party and its principles. What elements at the service of imperialism could use this platform to spread their unhealthy annexationist preachings and intrigues?

The Mesa Redonda, in my opinion, cannot fail to take up the imperialist crusade or denounce with all our might the legitimation of war and criminality, the lies of the media giants and all the atrocities and crimes of the spurious imperialist policy. Our position will always be one of confronting the hegemonic pretensions of imperialism, but we must also give attention to the grave domestic problems that we must resolve in order to strengthen our resistance. Given this we need to understand these problems in-depth and discuss them, without fear or self-censorship.

We have problems of every kind and we must tackle them. We should invite competent specialists to debate them with the participation of everyone, including those responsible for carrying out decisions so that they can justify them. Viewpoints don't have to be imposed. Among us abound people with talent, intelligence, honour and patriotism who are capable of contributing a great deal of excellent ideas. Let's utilise the human resources we've forged during half a century, and let's never imagine that we possess the absolute truth. Wisdom always comes from discussing things.

Translation: Granma debate on Cuban media 1

Mesa Redonda (Round Table) is a Cuban news and current affairs TV programme hosted by Randy Alonso that airs weeknights. Launched a decade ago, it is one of the many initiatives of the Battle of Ideas initiated by Fidel Castro following the successful campaign to demand the return of the Cuban child Elian Gonzalez in 2000. The Battle of Ideas encompasses dozens of cultural, educational and social programs aimed at reasserting socialist values eroded during the long, harsh post-Soviet Special Period. There is also an international edition of the programme broadcast on the Telesur (South TV) network based in Caracas, Venezuela.

Each edition of Mesa Redonda features journalistic reports and discussions by expert panels on the featured topic. Before he retired from the presidency Fidel would occasionally appear in the audience and would sometimes be invited to speak. For those of us in capitalist societies bombarded by filth such as Fox News and "infotainment" and more sophisticated pro-capitalist propaganda such as the BBC, Mesa Redonda is refreshing: serious, in-depth, pro-socialist analysis drawing on Cuba's abundant revolutionary intelligentsia. And this being Cuba, there is no commercial advertising in the nation's media. None.  

The programme's strength is its coverage of international issues. Lacking the resources of the corporate media giants, Mesa Redonda takes footage from CNN, erases the pro-capitalist commentary and adds its own voice-over to convey an entirely different message. Programmes such as Mesa Redonda are one reason why a typical 11 year old Cuban probably knows more about what's really going on in, say, the West Bank than most American adults. If you go there and you speak a little Spanish, stop a child in the street and ask them. 

Yet as the letter to Granma below alludes to, Mesa Redonda has suffered from the near absence of real debate on internal issues that has characterised the Cuban media from the very first decade of the Revolution. In the classic 1968 Cuban film Memories of Underdevelopment directed by Tomas Gutierrez Alea, set in Havana in late 1962, there is a memorable scene of a Cuban televised debate on the theme of "Literature and Underdevelopment". In keeping with the social realism of the film, the scene is entirely realistic, so realistic that it features two real-life characters who play themselves in the film: Cuban novelist Edmundo Desnoes, on whose novel the film is based, and US playwright Jack Gelber. 

In an amusing twist, the TV debate portrayed in the film is called, you guessed it, Mesa Redonda. In the scene, Gelber stands up in the audience in the middle of the debate and says, in English without subtitles, "My name is Jack Gelber, can I ask a question in English? Why is it that if the Cuban Revolution is a total revolution they have to resort to an archaic form of discussion such as a round table, and treat us to an impotent discussion of issues that I'm well informed about and most of the public here is well informed about, when there could be another, more revolutionary way to reach a whole audience like this?"

So way back in 1968, Memories of Underdevelopment, a masterpiece of sophisticated revolutionary criticism, that is, criticism that seeks to provoke critical reflection on the Revolution's shortcomings from a sympathetic standpoint, pointed out the limitations of the panel-of-experts format and the absence of public debate on critical internal issues. Here is the  Google Video link to Memories of Underdevelopment. The scene begins 59 minutes, 19 seconds into the movie. 

Mesa Redonda must be more attractive

Letter to the editor by L. Fleites Rivero, Granma, May 13, 2011

Translation: Marce Cameron

During the Con 2 que se quieran TV programme on March 3, show host Amaury [Perez] asked [Cuban journalist Reinaldo] Taladrid: Why not dedicate one day on the Mesa Redonda to discussing the problems of the population? Taladrid replied by saying that it wouldn't be easy and that while he understood Amaury's good intentions, there may be some who would want such a segment to be like a TV inquisition, these may not have been his exact words but he said something along these lines. I understand that this is Taladrid's personal opinion, I don't want to suggest that this is a decision that has been taken, I share his concern and we don't want to be naive, we know what happened in the old socialist bloc countries with press freedom, so vaunted by our enemies yet barely practiced by themselves.  

In an interview with the director of [the 1999 Cuban film] Casa Vieja he said: We're fearful of making criticisms because we fear losing what we have, and why do we want what we have if it doesn't do us any good? This can be interpreted in several ways, but for me, and I don't think this is one of the possible interpretations, what we have must be greatly improved but we cannot afford to lose it, so we have to be careful with criticisms and their intentions.     

Now then, I think we have to find a way to make the Mesa Redonda more attactive. I may be wrong and I may not have realised, but since the beginning of Mesa Redonda there haven't been any big changes, only small changes like The Corner segment that nearly always, I wouldn't say always, has very interesting commentaries.    

Taladrid himself explained in Amauray's programme how, in Pasaje a lo Desconocido [Journey into the Unknown, a TV programme hosted by Taladrid], despite enjoying popularity, they keep looking for ways to continually improve the programme so people don't lose interest.   

For me and many others who like to stay informed, Mesa Redonda is one of the best TV programmes because it not only gives you the news, but analyses and presents facts that allow one to see things from different viewpoints, going deeper and delving into the roots of problems. Most youth and many people who aren't so young don't watch it, and a valuable means to keep the population well informed is being lost, even when news breaks that is of interest to everyone. When you ask, "Have you heard what they said on Mesa Redonda?", some tell you they no longer have a TV or their kid is watching a children's programme, which is fair enough, but others tell you very quietly that they don't watch Mesa Redonda.

I think one way to increase the audience would be to take up themes that are more directly related to the population in a way that is sufficiently intelligent so as not to turn it into an inquisition, as Taladrid said.    

Raul [Castro] said we have to do away with the excessive secrecy to which we have become accustomed to during more than 50 years of living close to the enemy [i.e. US imperialism], because with the justification of not harming the Revolution we are actually harming the people.

In programmes that deal with the problems facing the population there can be a segment that takes up international issues, as happened yesterday when they were discussing sports and they touched on the issue of the falsification of the videos of Osama bin Laden and vice versa, as well as dealing with international issues there can be a round table or a programme taking up a fundamental problem facing the people, thus ensuring that most days people are interested, or the following week continuing with a topic broached previously.   

Current events are causing the demoralisation of imperialism due to its politics of double standards and many people, though they may be aware of this, don't internalise this problem [for imperialism] because they don't watch Mesa Redonda, nor the news, nor read the newspaper. We can't be satisfied with this and say "if they don't want to watch it what can we do", I'm not saying it compares with a novel, but we have to make it more attractive, getting audience feedback via surveys and never being satisfied with what has been achieved. The country is making great efforts to improve the economic situation, but ideology has to be one step ahead of these changes and for this we have to convince people, always taking into consideration that the enemy has powerful means of communication that are attractive in form, basing themselves on lies and manipulation in their constant efforts to confuse the less well-informed.

Let's recall Che when he said: "Don't concede even an inch to imperialism".