> No, I didn't forget to do anything. I have no reason to imagine you are
> an agent of American Imperialism any more than any other American is.
> The problem of American Imperialism is systemic, not individualistic.
While I don't believe that Chuck is an agent of American imperialism for his anti-Castro rhetoric, he does, however marginally, advance its interests by doing so in this context. As an anarchist who opposes the Cuban State as I do any other, I nonetheless believe anarchists should not act (or speak) if it advances the imperial agenda more than it can serve the interests of the people the action is purported to defend. Chuck inveighs against Castro and the Cuban State presumably because he believes they constitute obstacles to the Cuban people's self-determination and liberty. This, of course, is true. Chuck clearly believes the Cuban people do not require dictatorship but can have freedom. I agree. And I firmly believe that an anarchist Cuba could defend itself just as well against the U.S. as a Castro-led Cuba has. But Chuck thoroughly fails to consider the real-world effect his rhetoric can have in the context in which he acted.
As Chomsky often asserts--and I agree with--our influence is by and large limited to our respective societies (or, at least, those with whom we share a common language and culture and who are within our audience). Chuck's anti-Castro invective was (1) in English; (2) on an American internet list-serv; and (3) addressed to the "American left." His message has probably not reached a single Cuban person, and American leftists, who he has addressed, have no influence over Cuban affairs (nor, as an anarchist, should he think they should have such influence). He consequently has not advanced his agenda of liberating the Cuban people one iota.
But by inveighing against Castro in the same terms as does the US government and in a medium accessible to all Americans, he very well may have advanced US imperial interests, even if only extremely marginally. Anti-Castro propaganda coming from the US government is of course pretextual. The US government cares not for the liberation of the Cuban people. The US does not seek to intervene in Cuba because it is "communist." It seeks to intervene there, as everywhere, because Cuba is small and brown and it can, to its ruling class's benefit. Capitalism and imperialism dictate that control be exerted wherever possible. By endorsing and/or contributing to anti-Castro rhetoric in such a forum, where any American may come across it, Chuck may have unwittingly given an assist to US propaganda efforts to control the Cuban people. He has, however marginally, enhanced the power of the US government to act against Cuba. This I believe anarchists should not do.
If Chuck were (1) living in Cuba and (2) speaking in Spanish (3) to Cubans, I would have a different view of what he said. Advocating to Cubans--as a Cuban resident--that they should not accept the conditions under which they are currently living and should rise up against Castro is consistent with anarchist principles. But under the circumstances here, I do not believe it to be in anybody's interest except the US government's. As an American, Chuck can enhance the Cuban people's chances of liberation most by abstaining from reinforcing anti-Castro US propaganda.