Revisiting the Cuban Revolution

 Harry Targ

(Most of this essay was posted on The Rag Blog on July 5, 2012)

Cuban society has been an experimental laboratory... If one set of policies became problematic, the Cubans moved in different directions. Usually change came after heated debate at all levels of society. (2012).

I participated in the 2012 “Seminar on Socialist Renewal and the Capitalist Crisis” co-sponsored by the Radical Philosophy Association and the Institute of Philosophy, University of Havana. More than 40 U.S./Canadian/ Latin American scholars met in conference with at least 75 Cuban scholars in a five-day conference to discuss the political and economic changes occurring in Cuba and the United States.

I purposely entitled this essay “revisiting the Cuban Revolution” because I came away from this exciting conference convinced that the revolution was continuing. I saw no reason to revise what I wrote in 1992 about the Cuban Revolution (Cuba and the USA: A New World Order? International Publishers, 6):

...the Cuban revolution (even until this day) has constituted a living experiment that most progressive forces around the world identify with. Even though each society has its own history, class structure, level of development, and revolutionary potential, Cuba’s desire to create a government to serve its people and at the same time to transform them from a traditional consciousness to a revolutionary consciousness is shared by progressives everywhere. For progressives, Cuba is a laboratory, a grand social experiment that will provide knowledge for others as they seek fundamental change in their own societies... Cuba’s successes in the years ahead are successes of all progressive forces and, similarly Cuba’s defeats are defeats for all who wish to create egalitarian and humane societies.

The idea of “revolution” refers to a fundamental transformation of economic and political structures and peoples’ consciousness of their place in society and the values that should determine human behavior. Also, revolution is not a fixed “thing "but a process. That means that changes in structures, patterns of behavior, and consciousness are changing over time and in the case of revolution are moving toward, rather than away from, more complete human fulfillment.

What was most fascinating to observe about the Cuban Revolution is its constantly changing character. Cubans have debated and made decisions about gradual versus fundamental changes, the need to experiment with different ways to allocate scarce national resources and, most critical, how to respond to external economic, political, and military assaults.

Cuban society has been an experimental laboratory, changing public policies as contexts demand. If one set of policies became problematic, the Cubans moved in different directions. Usually change came after heated debate at all levels of society.

For example, after the 26th of July Movement seized power, the revolutionary regime launched programs to reduce rents for urban dwellers, established a nationwide literacy campaign, and after a cool U.S. response to the new government, put in place a large agrarian reform program. As United States hostility escalated Cuba established diplomatic and economic relations with the former Soviet Union. From that point U.S./Cuban hostilities became permanent.

In the mid-1960s, Cuba engaged in a great debate, to some degree unresolved, between those who wanted to move the Revolution along the path to “moral incentives,” that is creating a society in which people act because of their commitment to communist ideals, versus those who argued that in the short run “material incentives,” wages and benefits, needed to serve as the source of human motivation.

Later, the Cuban government embarked on a campaign to produce more sugar than ever before to earn scarce foreign exchange in order to advance the domestic economy. The 10 million ton sugar campaign failed with negative consequences for the sectors of Cuban society that were ignored. Then Cuba embraced the Soviet model of development, including joining the Eastern European Common Market.

By the 1980s, while the economy grew, Cubans saw a decline in the commitment to the Revolution. This recognition led to a campaign of “Rectification,” to reinstall in society and consciousness, the spirit of the Revolution. When the Socialist Bloc collapsed between 1989 and 1991, once again the Cuban Revolution had to adapt. “The Special Period” was instituted in the face of a decline in the economy of at least 40 percent. The Revolution survived, contrary to the predictions of outside experts.

In the 21st century, particularly after the United States established formal relations with Cuba in the era of the Obama administration, and despite devastating hurricanes, a global economic crisis, and the United States economic blockade, the Revolution continued. The Cubans embarked on a new set of policies that were designed to overcome economic stagnation, inadequate agricultural productivity, bureaucracy and corruption in government, and insufficient grassroots participation in decision-making, particularly at the workplace.

After extensive debate in the society at large, from the leadership of the Communist Party to virtually every workplace, neighborhood and village, the Cubans decided on new structures and policies.

The new policy guidelines included the expansion of a market in the production of goods and services. This expansion included a dramatic shift of employment from the state sector to self-employment. Emphasis was placed on developing cooperatives in manufacturing and services as well as in agriculture. In addition, Cuba fully embraced tourism and a vehicle for earning scarce foreign exchange.

In the agricultural sector efforts were being initiated to encourage a dramatic increase in those who can return to the land, increasing domestic food production while reducing the need to import food from abroad. New forms of grassroots participation in addition to revitalizing the mass organizations occurred. And the ration system of food distribution was replaced by the establishment of a safety net for those still in need of food. And where possible, enterprise autonomy, such as in the renovation of Old Havana, was encouraged and supported.

The new guidelines, over 300 in all, were designed to renovate economic and political institutions, stimulate local entrepreneurial enterprise, increase political participation, and overcome the continuing economic crisis that a small country such as Cuba found itself in as a result of natural and political disasters as well as a continued effort by the “Colossus of the North” to overthrow the regime.

Debate within Cuban society (and among our North American delegation at the 2012 conference) about these new guidelines was animated. Perhaps most basic was the concern about whether the economic reforms would undermine the Socialist character of Cuban society after over 60 years of struggle. Some worried that the introduction of markets would undermine the spirit of compassion and revolutionary consciousness that was inspired by the heroic Che Guevara and the band of scruffy revolutionaries who overthrew a neocolonial regime in 1959.

Still others debated about whether cooperatives constituted a productive and yet inspirational step in the long history of building Socialism and Communism. And what about youth, people asked. Was the revolution ancient history for young people, a youthful population that had access to a rich educational experience and lived a healthful life. Will they have the same fervor for the Revolution that their elders and foreign friends have had?

And, in fairness to the young, how could the Revolution be preserved while serving the lives of people whose historical experiences were different from their elders?

There were no easy answers to these questions; no guarantees of success; no convincing narratives of a linear development from a contradictory present to a utopian future. But, as I clearly saw in 1990 when I started attending meetings of U.S. and Cuban scholars, there was reason for hope. The Cuban Revolution survived, given so much to the world, and continued to intrigue progressives everywhere. 

The Trump Presidencies and US Policy Toward Cuba

"With God’s help, a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve. … I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba. ( “Trump Outlines New Cuba Policy in Speech in Miami’s Little Havana.” USA Today, June 16, 2017).

With these words, President Trump announced the return to the almost 60-year Cold War against Cuba, a war that has cost the people on the island and their relatives in the United States dearly. The efforts to resume travel restrictions, limit trade and investment on the island, and to punish US citizens who travel to Cuba on their own seemed motivated primarily by Trump’s promises to a dwindling sector of Cuban Americans in the Republican Party (and a few Democratic politicians as well). Although economics, geopolitics, and white supremacist ideology long shaped United States foreign policy, narrow and short-term political calculations seemed to have motivated the reversal of modest US openings to Cuba that had been put in place during the Obama Administration.

Only the counter-revolutionaries in critical electoral states such as Florida criticized the new openings to Cuba. And, as would become clear after the 2016 election, policy reversal would be motivated by the new president as a gesture to reverse any and all Obama foreign and domestic policies. The strong and vocal Cuban American lobby, which had supported presidential candidate Trump’s opponent Senator Marco Rubio, immediately gained legitimacy in the new administration.

And now, during Trump's second term, Marco Rubio is Secretary of State and the US has extended Cuba being on the list of states sponsoring terrorism, launched a full economic blockade of the island, threatens Cuba with war on almost a daily basis, and has dramatically impaired Cuba's world renowned health care system, created starvation and initiated a worldwide blockade ensuring Cuba cannot receive any oil, and if possible, any humanitarian assistance. In short, since the onset of Trump's second term, US policy toward Cuba has become similar to Israel's policy toward the people of Gaza, genocide in character. And now, just this week, the State Department has issued a warning about sponsors if "state terrorism" internationally and supporters of "state terrorism" within the United States. The latter includes a list of US peace and solidarity groups who advocate for better US/Cuban relations and/or transmit material aid to Cuba, food, medical supplies, and other desperately needed items for the Cuban people to survive. 

In short, given the long history of the Cuban peoples' struggle to survive and build their own society, they face now their greatest threat, and activists everywhere must continue all efforts to help the Cuban people and their revolution survive.

US LEADERSHIP BASED ON "ORGANIZED VIOLENCE" NOT DELUSIONS

 (An earlier version was reprinted in Portside by Harry Targ and Stephen David)

American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it’s just not worth it…We are, as my friend Madeleine Albright said, the indispensable nation. (Joe Biden, New York Times, October 19, 2023).

America’s destiny required the U.S. “…to set the world its example of right and honor…We cannot retreat from any soil where providence has unfurled our banner. It is ours to save that soil, for liberty, and civilization….It is elemental...it is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth.” Senator Albert Beveridge, Indiana, Congressional Record, 56 Congress, I Session, pp.704-712, 1898).

The brutal war in Ukraine continues. The US supports the continued Israeli genocidal policy against the Palestinian people. The US (and Israel) has launched a never-ending war on Iran. The US kidnapped the president of Venezuela and now is starving the Cuban people.

Meanwhile military spending in the United States and Europe increase at the expense of desperately needed social programs and transformations from economies based on fossil fuels.

Spokespersons from the United States government and the US corporate media particularly have produced and disseminated stories about aspects of the Ukraine war and US wars and interventions globally that together constitute a series of interconnected "delusions" about the context and causes of such US supported wars and their long-term impacts on international affairs. A delusion is "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument."

If one goes beyond the US/Western corporate media and if one gives serious thought to the historical logic of such narratives it would be clear that core premises of US policies are delusional.

For example, there are at least seven kinds of delusions that are broadly accepted and/or articulated by the US government and the corporate media.

Delusion number one is that the United States can reproduce the coalition of hegemonic forces that existed after World War 2. It is clear that the US Cold War international system cannot be replicated. After World War 2, the United States, the overwhelmingly hegemonic economic and military power,  institutionalized a world order based upon economics (the Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, the subsequent development of the European Economic Community and the European Union),  military dominance (from the construction of the NATO alliance to a worldwide network of alliances, bilateral treaties, and military bases), and an ideology (the “free world versus communism” or in our own day “democracy” versus “authoritarianism”). While this hegemonic goal - economics, military and ideological - was never fully achieved it has been whittled away by multiple poles of economic power (particularly the rise of the Chinese economy), a declining ability of the United States to control the world militarily (as evidenced historically by military defeats from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in the Western hemisphere), and growing global skepticism about what the United States means by “democracy.”

Delusion number two  suggests that the United States can remain the global hegemon. Here again any number of writers, and more importantly key leaders from countries in Europe, Asia, and throughout the Global South see the United States as a declining power economically, militarily, and politically. As the Ukraine crisis has unfolded many voices from the Global South have evidenced indifference to what appears to be a “white people’s war” that is being  used  to increase demands for fundamental changes in global economics and politics. Many around the world see the conflicts in Eastern Europe as a manifestation of the breakdown of North American and European power and control of what goes on in their countries. The most significant takeaway from the United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian intervention in Ukraine is the fact that 35 countries abstained in the vote; not only African and Asian countries but several from the Western Hemisphere. The population of those countries constituted about one-third of the population of the world. Not too long ago a loose coalition of big powers, the BRICS, began dialoguing about making modest demands for changes in power dynamics in global institutions and practice. Witnessing greater underdevelopment in developing countries instead of the promise of development, BRICS began charting a course not entirely dependent on the World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organizations. Some modest redistribution of decisioning power in major international institutions is in the air.

Delusion number three is that the United States can intimidate China. Since the 1980s, China has steered an economic course that involves encouraging foreign investment, utilizing technologies derived from these investments, and adopting an economic development model incorporating advanced capitalism and appropriate state controls. Not only is China about to surpass the United States in its gross domestic product but in its progress it has lifted 700 million Chinese out of poverty. And in terms of China’s global presence, it is establishing more attractive economic relations with nations all across the globe. Through its Belt and Road Initiative for example, China has already become the largest trading partner with the countries of Latin America. In this context, media reports of US threats if China maintains economic ties with Russia are matters of bluster and of little consequence.

Delusion number four is that the countries of the global south support the United States. Given the declining relative power of the United States on the global stage, the rising economic influence of China on the world stage, and the history of United States interference, (from sanctions to soldiers) in the affairs of other countries and peoples, nations of the Global South see the United States as the latest, perhaps last, imperial power. As V J Prashad pointed out, “all war is criminal” - both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ wars. Therefore, economic exploitation and political interference in the  Global South is increasingly viewed with disdain and discomfort. Again, this disdain is suggested by the number of countries that refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the recent General Assembly vote. Yet despite such clear signs the US media continues to praise US sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and now Russia, without discussing the horrific impacts these sanctions have on ordinary people in these countries. Nor does the media report that the United States and the European Union currently have some kind of sanctions imposed on 39 nations. Sanctions alone make it very unlikely that victimized people from the Global South regard the United States with respect and admiration.*And alternative forms of payment and paths for international trade will be the logical outcome of weaponizing trade and the banking system.

Delusion number five is that the United States remains the ‘indispensable nation,” the “last resort,” the model of democracy and market economies for the world. For the reasons suggested above and the demonstrable racism, violence, environmental disasters more frequently associated with the United States itself (while admired for certain achievements such as in education and science) most global citizens regard the US as a failed state, surely one not to emulate. More recently the overbearing, unfair, and restrictive moves against Chinese competitive strength in the form of banning Huawei’s 5G technology and Tiktok compromises the notion of free-market fairness and a just global economic world order. The “American Dream” begins to morph into a hollow specter in the global context. Together they mark an unmistakable decline.

Delusion number six is that the United States cannot learn from others: Cuba, China, peoples on the Africa continent and elsewhere. It has historically been central to the consciousness of the hegemonic actors in the world, the imperial powers, that they are and can be the exemplars and teachers; and, the countries that have been conquered and/or been impoverished have nothing to teach the powerful and only have to follow. Meanwhile examples of alternative healthcare delivery systems, adaptations to the natural environment, or forms of workplace democracy in less powerful nations are ignored.

Cuban doctors travel around the world to help cure pandemics.

And delusion number seven suggests that global hegemony can be maintained or achieved without major (indeed nuclear) war and/or climate disaster. This is the most dangerous delusion because it suggests that the powerful countries can proceed with their drive to dominate without increasing the risk of nuclear war or speeding up the destruction of nature.

Therefore, one project the peace and justice movement in the United States and hopefully with peace and justice activists around the world can do is to challenge the delusions articulated by American and European leaders as suggested by Professor Huntington above and to challenge the mythologies that are deeply embedded in the corporate media.  

*Countries facing economic sanctions include: 1. Afghanistan, 2. Belarus, 3. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4. Burundi, 5. Central African Republic, 6. China (PR), 7. Comoros 8. Crimea Region of Ukraine> 9. Cuba, 10. Cyprus, 11. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12. Guinea, 13. Guinea Bissau, 14. Haiti, 15. Iran, 16. Iraq, 17. Kyrgyzstan, 18. Laos, 19. Lebanon, 20. Libya, 21. Mali 22. Mauritania 23. Moldova 24. Montenegro 25. Myanmar, 26. Nicaragua, 27. North Korea - DPRK, 28. Palestinian Territories, 29. Russia, 30. Rwanda, 31. Serbia 32. Somalia, 33. South Sudan, 34. Sudan, 35. Syria, 36. Tunisia 37. Venezuela, 38. Yemen, 39. Zimbabwe. https://sanctionskill.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/39SanctionedCountries3.pdf

 

AN OLD NOVEL ABOUT A UNIVERSITY AND THE THREAT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM

 Harry Targ

 

 

Years ago, I read a little-known novel written by Howard Fast, one of over 70 novels, called Silas Timberman.  It impressed me at the time because the novel was about the era of McCarthyism and an apolitical English professor at a university in Indiana, much like Indiana University.

Today we see a brutal assault and destruction of the diversity of scholarship and education at Indiana University by a MAGA governor and state legislature. While less visible, the same efforts to destroy higher education are occurring at the other major Hoosier university, Purdue. The state legislature a year ago passed a law that requires annual reviews of all instructors to see that they include all perspectives in their teaching. Even tenured faculty, tenure a long-honored commitment to protect faculty from capricious attacks on their teaching and research, may be disciplined  if they do not meet the criteria of “fairness and balance,” (which presumably would require faculty to present the pluses and minuses of Hitler’s Germany or the Spanish Inquisition). The legislation also required these institutions to take complaints seriously from any student, even anonymously, concerning their professors on any number of things, without providing proof.

In addition, Indiana University, which has been known for its multiplicity of language programs must shut them down if they do not have enough majors. About 40 such language programs have been eliminated. Both universities have been encouraged to eliminate humanities programs, interdisciplinary programs, and programs that address diversity, equity, and identities. The universities have shifted their resources to artificial intelleigence, collaboration with the military and large pharmaceutical companies, and generally, to prioritize so-called STEM education.

Legislators and university administrators claim that the only salient measure of university success is whether college graduates get jobs. (ironically some data suggests that many STEM college graduates are not finding jobs and employers in the corporate sector are mostly interested in hiring graduates who write well, have analytical skills, and have a sensibility about the world outside the workplace).

All of these changes are occurring at the same time that both universities have acted in various ways to repress dissenting voices and actions regarding policies pertaining to the national and state governments on race, gender, and support for US wars. At Indiana University, for example, police with weapons were called on campus in response to protests of US support for Israel’s genocide against Palestinians.

In sum, the state government, college administrators, and the federal government are seeking to roll back higher education to its historic role of training young people to serve the society as is and to socialize them to accept the legitimacy uncritically policies and US institutions. Perhaps the most egregious of these policies is to reduce or eliminate course work and research that address the underside of US history such as the experiences of slavery and war.

Therefore, as I reread Silas Timerman this time, the novel seemed uncomfortably relevant to today. The lead character, Timberman, is an English professor who pays little attention to national and international politics. He chooses to see his life as almost solely about his family, wife and children, and what goes on in his classroom. As a World War Two veteran he has misgivings about the onset of the Korean War (the novel takes place in 1950) but he does not speak out about the war.

Then a confluence of factors leads to his changed circumstances, an insular professor becomes a public and hated figure. Silas’ department head asks professors to volunteer to do civil defense duty. Silas, although apolitical, regards a national civil defense program as destabilizing, leading to the increased probability of nuclear war. So, he tells his Head that he would not participate. 

Meanwhile in his Introduction to American Literature class he presents a syllabus that suggests that the paradigmatic American writer is Mark Twain. And he assigns his students read a Twain short story called “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.” In this short story a bag of gold is distributed to a bank in Hadleyburg requesting that the gold be returned to its rightful owner. The self-righteous citizens of Hadleyburg show up in mass to claim the gold. The thrust of the short story is the hypocrisy of the town and the citizens pursuit of gold.

The combination of Silas’ refusal to volunteer for civil defense duty coupled with the short story suggested to a few students that Professor Timberman was a “communist.” The ridiculous confluence of the public processing of the professor’s actions led to his personal and political transformation. He was attacked publicly in the college newspaper and becomes a public target, attacked by some members of the university community for being a “communist,” By the end of the novel he is forced to appear before a McCarthy-like committee. As he refuses to answer some questions, he was cited for contempt and at the novel's end is handcuffed and taken off to jail for a three year sentence.

When I first read the novel some twenty years ago, I processed the novel as a kind of ancient history. McCarthyism, as I taught in classes on US foreign policy, had a significant impact on American culture and politics. The vibrancy of intellectual life on college campuses convinced me that the 1950s were relevant about the past but could/would not occur again.

But reflecting on contemporary efforts to destroy higher education in Indiana, Florida, Texas and virtually everywhere suggest that the experiences of Silas Timberman are occurring once again. And the same constellation of actors, national and state politicians, quiescent or intimidated professors, minorities of ill-informed students are recreating, only more so, the 1950s.

THE UNFOLDING OF THREE IDEOLOGIES TODAY

 Harry Targ

 

Perhaps the most useful definition of “ideology” is one that refers to a body of interconnected ideas or a system of thought about how the world works. These ideas often explain the meaning of life, how and why society is organized the way it is, and how it ought to be organized. However, ideas do not come from the ether. They come from class position and concrete interests, background, social status, and education by family, schools, peer groups, and popular culture. (Diary of a Heartland Radical, “The Three Ideologies in American Life,” September 20, 2015).

Ideologies are ways of explaining reality. They may not be presented in a systematic or mathematical or rigorous way but the careful listener can discern their underlying messages. And, of course, the messenger has a point of view that usually comes from his or her economic or political position. At base, ideologies are reflections of the interests of those who articulate them and believe in them. All this is becoming more important to understand and process during the 2026 election season.

One ideological pole is committed to what the world knows as the “neoliberal” ideology. It promotes a twenty-first century capitalist agenda. It supports financial speculation and privileges wealth and entrenched political power. To maintain profits austerity policies in neoliberalism’s name are imposed on working classes. War and preparation for war are necessitated by the resistance to the globalization of these policies. The application of this ideology domestically and internationally requires compliant support from most workers, women, and minorities. And critical to it, the neoliberal ideology presents itself as what it is not. It is not a perspective that represents the interests of the 99 percent. And to justify its perpetuation its supporters say what former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to proclaim; “there is no alternative.”

A second ideological pole has two variants. In the short run either of these may be more a danger to humankind than neoliberalism. The first variant is the “virtues of wealth” ideology. Wealth, however it is secured, is its own justification. The wealthy are virtuous. The wealthy are wise. And the wealthy therefore are ordained to rule. Since most workers, most people of color, most women are poor, by definition they are unworthy of respect as human beings. And masses of people the “virtues of wealth” ideology suggests, can trust the brash rugged individualist super-wealthy individual to rule because he does not represent traditional institutionalized economic or political power. The wealthy few are like deities to be revered and obeyed. And to be clear, this view is profoundly anti-human and justifies unlimited violence at home and abroad based on what the virtuous leader decides is necessary.

A second variant of this ideological pole, the “fundamentalist” ideology, rationalizes opposition to government in theological terms. The only way to rescue humanity, this ideology suggests, is to follow a particular god embedded in some kind of supernatural fundamentalism; a fundamentalism that regards opponents as monsters. While its current promoters portray the social order in terms of existent evil only to be saved by religious good, their political positions would continue to reward wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority and would lead to enormous violence against people everywhere, who are seen as infidels. Whether the leaders derive their legitimacy from their wealth or their special piety, it is their task to lead and the peoples to follow.

A third ideological pole, “building 21^st century socialism,” is based upon the proposition that all social institutions, including government, should serve the people, all the people. It is based upon the sanctity of human life and the belief that it is through society that every individual can achieve her/his potential. Concretely this means real economic justice, democracy, fairness in the law, and peace. The issues embedded in the 21^st century socialist vision involve education, health care, environmental sustainability, jobs, adequate income, and the development of programs to attack racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination. This third ideological pole asserts, as the World Social Forum proclaimed a long time ago, that “another world is possible.” 

From the vantage point of the radically different character of these ideologies, the 2026 election becomes very important. In the long run, given the growing danger of violence to nature and people, building 21^st century socialism offers the only possibility for building a just and environmentally sustainable world.

It is important to note that the continuation of or defeat of any of these will not be determined by the election of any one person. Victories and defeats are more about the power of political movements and the magnitude of electoral victories or defeats in the service of these movements. But there is no question that the momentum that emerges from the election battles of 2026 matters.

For those on the Left, the only real option for the survival of humankind is 21^st century socialism. And the achievement of it will require a long-term struggle for the consciousness of the people.

 

Remembering the Red Scare That Started the Cold War: The Emergence of the Anti-Communist Political Culture

Harry Targ

"Wasn't That A Time"

https://youtu.be/k-k0YzG2DFA?si=VhaoO6rmOaXdRGol

President Trump warned Friday that communism poses a “mortal threat” to the country during a speech at Mount Rushmore on the eve of America’s 250th birthday…. 

“A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of communism, there is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success" (Victor Nava,and Nicholas McEntyre, New York Post, July 3, 2026).

To foster support for the dramatic new U.S. foreign policies, the executive branch launched a campaign against "communism" from the beginning of the Cold War. President Truman issued Executive Order 9835 in March 1947 that instituted a federal loyalty program that required sworn statements by all federal employees that they had not been a member of the Communist Party of the United States or groups affiliated with it. This inspired similar loyalty oath requirements at all levels of government. The Truman Administration created the Attorney General's list, which was a list of suspect organizations believed to be affiliated with the Communist Party. Federal employees who had belonged to any of these groups would be subject to dismissal. Two thousand employees were fired from their jobs and over 200 resigned in anticipation of dismissal.

One of the most aggressive executive agencies in the struggle against communism was the Federal Bureau of Investigation, headed by J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI infiltrated groups, wrote books denouncing people with suspicious ideas (like giving support for racial justice), hounded suspected radicals in their homes and on their jobs and through the statements by Hoover linked every public criticism with foreign and subversive causes. 

Congress launched its own attacks on communism, in Hollywood, in the schools, in the public sector, in unions, through the technique of the Congressional hearing. From 1946 to 1954 there were 135 Congressional investigations of "communism" in Hollywood, the main activity organized by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). Individual Senators and Congresspersons began to build careers fighting Communism at home. Congressman Richard Nixon gained fame attacking former New Deal administrator, Alger Hiss. Senator Joseph McCarthy, for whom the whole anti-communist phenomenon was mistakenly credited, announced that there were hundreds of Communists in the State Department.  Of greatest importance to workers was the passage in 1947 of the Taft-Hartley Act which was designed to limit workers trade union rights. Union leaders had to sign anti- Communist loyalty oaths or their unions would get decertified. 

Not only would anti-Communism frame the understanding Americans had about the Soviet Union and China, but such a frame would pervade virtually all political consciousness: about class, race, and gender. Labor militants were labeled “Communists” to reduce their effectiveness in organizing. Further, people who defended government and community responsibility, or who criticized commercialism were attacked as being,  subversive, and  Communist. The bottom line for all this was that the anti-Communist impulse in American life served the interests and needs of capitalism by smearing social reform in postwar America. Particularly, anti-Communism was used to gain support for the emerging US foreign policy of economic and military dominance in the world  and to build domestic opposition to labor demands at home. The political conditions were being created to support the globalization of U.S. power and influence.

THE CONTRADICTIONS OF THE “DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE”: Whose? What For?

 Harry Targaly 4, 2026, America will celebrate 250 years of independence.  of p 56 signatures, America began the greatest political joey in human history,” said President Trump of this momentous anniversary. Natures, Amern the journey in human history,” said President Trsary.

Class, Race, Patriarchy, Imperialism and the “American “Revolution”

We should celebrate the continued call for democracy, human rights, and freedom. But we need to be honest with ourselves. The United States over these years has been among the most racist, violent, and exploitative nations in human history.

First, and it is obvious, the proponents of independence from Great Britain, the then reigning colonial empire, and soldiers who took up arms were owners and supporters of the slave system, the ravages of which exist even today. As Ted Allen documented, the concept of race in what became the United States was invented to justify slavery and the division of the working class. In other words, by 1776 the slave system served profit and split the working class.   American “revolutionaries” then I(and now) celebrated freedom and democracy and accepted without discomfort the superiority of “the white race.”

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/6/29/eddie_glaude

And the “revolution” was not only about defending slave labor. It was about land. “He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.” As Rachel Nagle described on Democracy Now the American Revolution was about the “right” of colonials to expand, slaughter, and occupy the continent. As she compellingly argues, the American revolution institutionalized imperialism, a project that continues till today. https://www.democracynow.org/2026/6/30/rebecca_nagle_first_america

And, of course, the Declaration boldly states that “all men are created equal.” The system of patriarchy proclaimed in this document was enshrined in the constitution and lives on in economics, politics, and culture today. 

On American Exceptionalism

U.S. policymakers believe and still propagate various illusions or rationales for United States foreign policy that become part of common political discourse. In relations with Latin America, and particularly Cuba, policy has been built upon economic interest, geopolitics, and ideology. The ideological discourse justifying U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere can be traced back to the nineteenth century. Its modern exposition is surprisingly similar to significant declarations by foreign policy elites during the era of the Cuban war against Spanish colonialism.

For example, shortly after the U.S. victory in the Spanish/Cuban/American war, Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge articulated what was to become the new ideology of American empire linking economics to Godly purpose: “We will establish trading posts throughout the world as distributing points for American products.” “Great colonies, governing themselves, flying our flag and trading with us, will grow about our posts of trade, And American law, American order, American civilization, and the American flag will plant themselves on shores hitherto bloody and benighted” (in Greg Jones, Honor in the Dust: Theodore Roosevelt, War in the Philippines, and the Rise and Fall of America’s Imperial Dream, 2012, 93).

In a campaign speech in Indianapolis, Beveridge articulated a spiritual call and rationale for a global policy that transcended mere economic gain. America’s destiny required the U.S. “…to set the world its example of right and honor…We cannot retreat from any soil where providence has unfurled our banner. It is ours to save that soil, for liberty, and civilization" (in Jones, 96). And speaking before the Senate justifying the colonization of the Philippines, he proclaimed a U.S. mission that transcended politics; “It is elemental…. it is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth.” (Congressional Record, 56 Congress, I Session, pp.704-712).

Within a few years of the U.S. colonization of Cuba and the Philippines, President Theodore Roosevelt elaborated on the U.S. world mission. He spoke of the necessity of promoting peace and justice in the world: a project that required adequate military capabilities both for “securing respect for itself and of doing good to others.” To those who claim that the United States seeks material advantage in its activist policy toward the countries of the Western Hemisphere, Roosevelt responded that such claims were untrue. The U.S., he said, is motivated by altruism: “All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship.”

Cuba was an example, he said: “If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt Amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all questions of interference by the Nation with their affairs would be at an end.” He assured Latin Americans in this address to Congress in 1904 that “…. if they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society, they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort….” (“Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” President’s Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1904). 

During a presentation in Norway in 1910 Roosevelt praised the U.S. for leaving Cuba as promised after the war to return only   temporarily because of “….a disaster…a revolution” such that…. we were obliged to land troops again.” The President proudly declared that: “And before I left the Presidency Cuba resumed its career as a separate republic, holding its head erect as a sovereign state among the other nations of the earth. All that our people want is just exactly what the Cuban people themselves want—that is, a continuance of order within the island, and peace and prosperity, so that there shall be no shadow of an excuse for any outside intervention.” (“the Colonial Policy of the United States,” An Address Delivered at Christiania, Norway, May 5, 1910).

Earlier on January 18, 1909, to the Methodist Episcopal Church (“The Expansion of the White Races”) Roosevelt applauded the increasing presence--he estimated 100 million people—of “European races” throughout the world. The indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere have been assimilated with their “intruders” with the end result “that the Indian population of America is larger today than it was when Columbus discovered the continent and stands on a far higher plane of happiness and efficiency.”

And to highlight the missionary message Roosevelt added: “Of course the best that can happen to any people that has not already a high civilization of its own is to assimilate and profit by American or European ideas, the ideas of civilization and Christianity, without submitting to alien control; but such control, in spite of all its defects, is in a very large number of cases the prerequisite condition to the moral and material advance of the peoples who dwell in the darker corners of the earth.” 

Before the reader dismisses these simplistic, racist statements, it is useful to examine more recent proclamations of the motivations for United States foreign policy particularly toward Latin America. It is worth remembering that recent U.S. presidents, including Barack Obama, quote favorably from the words of Theodore Roosevelt on various subjects. 

For example, in March, 1961, and clearly as a response to the Cuban revolution, President John Kennedy announced the creation of a new “Alliance for Progress,” in Latin American, “a vast cooperative effort, unparalleled in magnitude and nobility of purpose, to satisfy the basic needs of the American people for homes, work, and land, health and schools.” The Alliance was to be a ten-year program of social and economic development that would transform the hemisphere “into an historic decade of democratic progress.” Representatives of participating countries would prepare plans for their own development that would “establish targets and priorities, insure monetary stability, establish the machinery for vital social change, stimulate private activity and initiative, and provide for a maximum national effort.” JFK promised U.S financial contributions to stimulate economic reform and in the end transform “the fragmentation of Latin American economies.” The variety of programs—education, land reform, tax reform—would rebuild the region.

The United States also pledged its assistance to those countries whose independence might be threatened. And, of course, the President proclaimed that the United States supports an alliance of free governments and will work to eliminate “tyranny”. JFK expressed “our special friendship to the people of Cuba and the Dominican Republic and the hope they will soon rejoin the society of free men….” Sixty years after the proclamations of Teddy Roosevelt the United States remained committed to offer the blessings of freedom and democracy to the peoples of Cuba. (President John F. Kennedy “Preliminary Formulations of the Alliance for Progress,” March 13, 1961).

Twenty-two years later President Reagan again underscored the U.S. presumption of its special role in the Hemisphere, restating the U.S. role more in the language of Roosevelt than the subtler Kennedy. The speech was presented at a gathering of Cuban Americans. Reagan praised assembled Cuban Americans, such as Jorge Mas Canosa, who came to the United States motivated by a passion for liberty. Reagan spoke of descendants of pioneers and emigrants from various locales who started “fresh” in the “New World”; people who “share the same fundamental values of God, family, work, freedom, democracy, and justice.” (“Perhaps the greatest tie between us can be seen in the incredible number of cathedrals and churches found throughout the hemisphere. Our forefathers took the worship of God seriously.”)

Reagan then warned of the “new colonialism that threatens the Americas.” This, of course, was represented by the revolutionary government of Nicaragua, the revolutionaries fighting against dictatorship in El Salvador, and the enduring threat to freedom, Cuba. In the latter, the independent labor movement was destroyed in 1959, churches suppressed, all free speech eliminated, and young Cubans sent to faraway places to defend unpopular regimes. And remembering the sacrifices of the United States in the Cuban war against Spanish colonialism, Reagan regretted that “Cuba is no longer independent.” He promised that “we will not let this same fate befall others in the hemisphere….”

After endorsing 1980s policies such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative and Radio Marti President Reagan reminded his audience of the perpetual burden Americans face in defending freedom. He quoted Teddy Roosevelt; “We, here in America, hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of men.” And Reagan ended: “finally, let us pledge ourselves to meet this sacred responsibility. And let us pledge ourselves to the freedom of the noble, long suffering, Cuban people.” (“Text of President Reagan’s Speech on Threat to Latin America, New York Time, May 21, 1983).

President Obama’s opening remarks at the Summit of the Americas (April 14, 2012) were different in tone than those cited above. He celebrated economic development in the region, encouraged continued economic globalization, praised the growth of Latin American nations such as Brazil and Colombia proving that “a lot of the old arguments on the left and the right no longer apply.” The challenge for the future, he said, was to continue distributing the benefits of globalization to more and more people and “giving businesses opportunities to thrive and create new products and new services and enjoy the global marketplace.”

The President called on the Hemisphere nations to continue training people to compete in the global economy, stimulate trade, establish more mutually beneficial trade agreements like the one he signed with the President of Colombia, become more energy efficient, and promote education. He concluded with some of the more traditional presidential language, albeit in less than messianic terms, about core principles of governance: “democracy and rule of law, human rights being observed,freedom of expression.”  In addition, he mentioned “personal security, the capacity for people to feel as if they work hard then they’re able to achieve, and they have motivation to start a business and to know that their own work will pay off.”

President Obama emphasized the connections between “clean, transparent open government that is working on behalf of its people.” These features, he said, were important for business. “The days when a business feels good working in a place where people are being oppressed—ultimately that’s an unstable environment for you to do business. You do business well when you know that it’s a well-functioning society and that there’s a legitimate government in place that is going to be looking out for its people.” With that said, Obama praised both the governments of Colombia and Brazil.

The Obama comments at the opening Summit of the Americas in 2012, more paralleling the language of President Kennedy’s Alliance speech than the missionary statements of Beveridge, Roosevelt, and Reagan, still suggest that the United States, and some Latin American political and economic elites, reflect the interests and values of the masses of Latin America’s citizens. All the speeches offer a common standard to judge what is best for the vast majorities of the peoples of the Hemisphere; whether the region is moving toward or away from God, Democracy (defined in very selective ways) and Markets. And, whether stated or implied, the polar opposite of this standard is most starkly represented by the Cuban revolution.

And now we have President Trump who on July 1 flew into Medora, a small North Dakota town (in his newly acquired airplane gift from the government of Qatar) to view the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt presidential library. TR to Trump was “a really a great he-man.” He praised the mythology of Roosevelt liberating Cuba, which he said that after many decades is “coming our way.” Trump also praised TR’s role in the construction of the Panama Canal.

A week earlier, Trump, speaking on the National Mall, declared: “A short time ago, we were a dead country, we were dead,  now we’re the hottest country  anywhere in the world…We’re respected by everybody. Nobody is laughing at us anymore.” (C-Span.org, June 25, 2026).

Friends of Trump, funders of Freedom 250 who are working to create a celebratory narrative of the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, include Palantir, Lockhead Martin, and Oracle. Other groups have organized to remember the 250^th anniversary in a more nuanced way, in the words of The Guardian, to challenge “how Trump has hijacked America’s 250^th and how instead the event should have been cause for a unifying celebration” (June 30, 2026).

In sum, the struggle over historical narratives matters. In the case of the 250^th year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is a pivotal site for symbolic struggle. And the most compelling arguments about the remembrance are that democracy, freedom, and human rights matter and should be celebrated BUT the history of the United States contradicts these celebratory words. US history is a history of white supremacy, slaughter in the name of imperialism, and the institutionalization of patriarchy. All of these have been celebrated by “American Exceptionalism.”

The project for progressives today, as it was in the past, is to make the history of the present and future move in the direction of the words of  the declaration.