Two generations and the same old defense of socialism

Two generations and the same old defense of socialism
FERNANDO DÁMASO | La Habana | 17 Nov 2015 - 7:17 pm.

A section in the official press, together with two theorists of
different generations to defending a failed system. Of special note: a
fear of the US's new policy toward Cuba.

In the Generaciones del Diálogo section of the Juventud Rebelde
newspaper, an old leader, though an upstart criollo theoretician of
Socialism, and a young aspirant to be one, reflect on Socialism.

The former, Armando Hart Dávalos, rages against the so-called
20th-century "real socialism" in Eastern Europe, arguing that "it was
not real, because it was not an indigenous Socialism, based on the
realities of its time and the peoples in which it prevailed," going on
to state that "... but there is no doubt that humanity must move forward
to successfully establish a genuine and authentic Socialism."

To sum up his position, this Socialism ought to encompass the ideas of
Fidel and Che, together with those of Marx, Engels and Lenin, in
addition to those of Mariátegui and José Martí. In reality, a real
hodgepodge (a poor variant of the traditional Creole ajiaco stew) that
is quite difficult to digest. To include Martí, he invokes his words
when Marx passed away: "Marx deserves to be honored because he sided
with the poor." What he conveniently forgets is that Martí also stated:
"The Socialist idea features two dangers, like many others: that of
foreign-induced, confused and incomplete readings of it; and that of the
arrogance and hidden rage of the ambitious, who, to rise in the world,
to have shoulders upon which to rise, begin by pretending to be fierce
defenders of the helpless. "

The young Harold Bertot Triana, meanwhile, writes "There is a
misconception, and quite taken frivolously, which identifies socialism
with misery, with blackouts, in contrast to the high living standards of
some capitalist countries." He goes on to indict the "rampant misery in
the world, famine, high infant mortality, violence and wars that cause
millions of deaths." All this in a generic way, and as if they were
solely attributable to capitalism.

Among other old arguments he brandishes, once again, the relative
"youth" of Socialism and its "lack of experience", which have produced
"class-based dictatorships" and "political structures," along with other
aberrations.

The author writes of how socialism is "cornered" by capitalism, the
class struggle, ideological battles and a countless string of similar
approaches leading up to the main question: "In the face of so many
difficulties, and after the failure of many socialist models, is it
worth it, at the end of the day, to struggle for utopia? "

His answer: "For the poor there is no alternative. Their alternative is
to undertake the creation of a different alternative. " Aside from the
play on words and a repeated manipulation of the poor, as if they formed
the majority of the planet, there is nothing new here. At this point he
begins to expound upon his ideal: a more democratic, less centralized
socialism, featuring a perpetual revolution, and winds up, as could only
be expected: "We must be very careful with feigned political
disarmament. US foreign policy has not ceased to be imperialistic, nor
have they ceased to be imperialists."

Undoubtedly, the failure of Cuban Socialism, the nation's manifest
fatigue, and the recent path taken to restore relations with the US,
along with the meetings that have taken place between working groups
from both countries, have set off alarms in some sectors linked to the
regime, who have depended and continue to depend on confrontation, and
fear losing their positions. Neither do they seem very convinced of the
strength of their principles or the arguments they have wielded for
years to uphold them.

It is noteworthy that two representatives from very different
generations coincide with similar arguments in defense of a failed
system, one in a more subtle way than the other, but both without any
power of conviction. All attempts to establish socialism and render it
prosperous and efficient in different regions around the world have
failed, and the cases of Cuba and North Korea, although their respective
governments refuse to recognize it, are also failures, though painfully
long-standing, unfortunately for their citizens.

China and Vietnam are actually hybrids of socialism and capitalism:
socialists in their politics and capitalists in their economics. And the
so-called socialism of the 21st century, and others with like-sounding
names, belong to the realm of Latin American magical realism: pure
folklore advanced by archaic proponents not even worth analyzing.

It is no secret that capitalism is imperfect, that is spawns injustices,
that it does not solve all problems, and still has much room for
improvement (though it´s not the same in every country where it is
implanted), but thus far it is the only system that has led to, building
on what has been achieved in the past, humanity's greatest developments.
And its achievements have ultimately benefitted the majority - something
that cannot be said of socialism.

Source: Two generations and the same old defense of socialism | Diario
de Cuba - http://www.diariodecuba.com/cuba/1447780653_18191.html