> All this said, the Cuban people are not free. Humanity no where has
> emerged from class society into history.
There is something sad about Rakesh Bhandari's combination of theoretical cleverness and obstinate political blindness. Altho not a marxist (that requires partisanship) Rakesh is one of the brightest marxological thinkers around: a member of the illuminati. Actually he calls himself (privately anyway) a 'communist'. But he is politically as percipient as one of those worms that writhe around volcanic vents on the floor of the Pacific. We recently had a private exchange of letters about Stalin. He attacked me for not responding to Heartfield's subfusc history of Stalinism; I replied that since I delete Heartfield-on-history unread, my omission was not sinful but contingent (on Hearfield being boring and predictable). I then expounded at some length my defence of Stalin[ism]. Rakesh replied to the effect that this all caused him lots of problems, he needed to think about what I said, but he would get back to me. He did not, of course, get back to me.
I can't be bothered to rehearse the whole thing again here. I just wat to observe that this posting of Rakesh's about freedom, Castro and Cuba is lamentable C-R-A-P. And I only want to ask him:
What does it mean for a Cuban to 'be free'? Does it mean, to have a right to earn dollars freely, go on day trips to Miami to spend them freely on gorceries, souvenirs and whores? Or does Rakesh's vision of freedom denied to Cubans encompass something a little less philistine? -- Mark Jones http://www.geocities.com/~comparty