Cuba Fading Fast

An example for working people? Not even the plumber has a truck! (Source)

Roy Landerson publishes a piece in The Militant misleadingly entitled Why the Cuban Revolution is an example for all working people. That doesn't describe the article at all. Instead it's a sentimental post about how a dictator was overthrown by a bunch of ragtag "revolutionaries." This isn't an example for working people so much as a sentimental journey for those who were inspired by the so-called "revolution" at the time.

How many people in the US will recall Fidel Castro's supposedly inspirational speech History Will Absolve Me? It's two hours long! All but the most brainwashed Castro fans will fall asleep before it's over. It asserts that Castro partisans are unfailingly honest, innocent, peaceful (despite launching an insurrection) citizens, while the government officials are all and always liars, crooks and thieves. I confess I didn't read the whole thing--it was too boring and too incredible.

Yet Mr. Landerson will have us believe that History Will Absolve Me is the greatest document since the Declaration of Independence.

Usually, if a country is "an example for working people" it's because it has a higher standard of living, offers more freedom in terms of career, where to live, and how to spend your money and your free time. Cuba provides none of that: housing is hopelessly dilapidated, food is nearly non-existent, you can't choose a career, and--it seems to me worst of all--one has to spend one's free time listening to boring speeches and "volunteering" to contribute free labor.

Whatever the good life is, Cuba's is the complete opposite. When possible Cubans flee to the USA--or Mexico or Colombia, or Panama or any place besides Cuba. Mr. Landerson's headline is 180 degrees wrong.

The dictator that so offended Mr. Castro was a politician cum gangster named Fulgencio Batista, president of Cuba from 1952 to 1959. The Castroites had much to complain about (links & footnotes omitted).

Throughout the 1950s, Havana served as "a hedonistic playground for the world's elite", producing sizable gambling, prostitution and drug profits for the American mafia, corrupt law-enforcement officials, and their politically elected cronies. In the assessment of the Cuban-American historian Louis Perez, "Havana was then what Las Vegas has become." Relatedly, it is estimated that by the end of the 1950s the city of Havana had 270 brothels. In addition, drugs, be it marijuana or cocaine, were so plentiful at the time that one American magazine in 1950 proclaimed "Narcotics are hardly more difficult to obtain in Cuba than a shot of rum. And only slightly more expensive." As a result, the playwright Arthur Miller described Batista's Cuba in The Nation as "hopelessly corrupt, a Mafia playground, (and) a bordello for Americans and other foreigners."

While the prostitution part is as much a draw today as it was back then, the Castro regime has curtailed the drug trade. They've tried to keep the tourist industry alive, but instead of attracting the rich or famous (eg, Ernest Hemingway), Cuba instead appeals to low-budget package tourists. Much less lucrative.

In 1960 (according to Google AI) Cuba produced between 5.6 and 6.0 million tons of sugar. After 66 years of Castro rule production is down to 200,000 tons.

Perhaps the country most like Cuba is the Dominican Republic--same ethnicity and former Spanish colony. In 1960 it was ruled by a dictator way more vicious than Mr. Batista, namely Rafael Trujillo ("Generalissimo" from 1934 until his death in 1961). He is credibly charged with murdering between 25,000 and 50,000 people. If Mr. Castro had been Dominican he would have been summarily shot and never put on trial.

I asked ChatGPT what fraction of Dominican households had access to electricity in 1960, and also today. Her answer, excerpted:

In 1960: the best estimate is roughly 15–25% of households had reliable electricity.

Today (2025–2026): about 95–99% of Dominican households have reasonably reliable electricity, although reliability still varies substantially by neighborhood.

I put the same question to her about Cuba:

By the late 1950s Cuba was one of the more electrified countries in Latin America:

• Havana and other cities had extensive electric service.
• Cuba was considerably more urbanized than the Dominican Republic.
• Many towns had electricity, although rural electrification remained incomplete.
• Large rural areas still lacked service entirely.

Historical studies of Latin American electrification suggest Cuba's household electrification rate around 1958–1960 was approximately 55–70%, much higher than most neighboring countries.

Moreover, where electricity existed, it was generally dependable.

Clearly, Mr. Batista was way more successful in getting electricity to his population than his Dominican counterpart. He also killed far fewer people. Corruption was, of course a problem, but comparatively a minor one..

Regards today, Ms. GPT points out that 100% of Cuban households are connected to the electrical grid. But the grid is not reliable, and in recent years it's failed more or less completely. Apparently Cuba had another nationwide blackout in early June. She writes:

Access to the grid has improved from roughly 60% to essentially 100%. But reliability has deteriorated dramatically in recent years because of the collapse of the generating system and fuel shortages. A household that technically has electricity today may still experience many hours each day without power.

She goes on to estimate that despite 100% access, only between 30%- 50% of households have power at any given time. Ms. GPT does not have access to the most recent internet pages, so I think today's figure is no more than 30%.

In other words, since Trujillo died, the Dominican Republic has brought its electrical grid almost to first world standards. Meanwhile, Cuba has gone the opposite direction--from a dependable, nationwide grid under Batista, to complete collapse under the Castro brothers. This is NOT an example for working people--at least not a positive one.

Mr. Landerson's retort will be Cuba's problems are entirely due to the perfidy of the United States. Of course that's small comfort to the average Cuban--why did the Castro brothers go so far out of their way to anger the US? Seems in retrospect to be totally unnecessary--what has Cuba gained from that? As Marco Rubio puts it, the only thing worse than a communist is a stupid communist.

 
But Mr. Landerson is wrong: Cuba is in significant part the author of her own problems, for when it comes to corruption, the Castros have been far worse than anything Batista did. The Castro regime has stolen 90% of people's paychecks--it's hard to get more corrupt than that.

A useful counterpoint to Mr. Landerson's piece appears in Left Voice in an article by Adrien Masson entitled Cuba’s Market Reforms Are a Huge Retreat for Socialism. He takes the regime to task for taking some obvious steps to rejuvenate its economy, to wit:

The main measures include the adoption of private banking, lifting the cap on how many companies private individuals can own, giving private companies control over how many workers they hire and at what wages, eliminating the government’s monopoly on foreign trade, repaying external debt by selling national assets, and expanding the private sector’s reach. State-owned properties and real estate can now be sold to both domestic and foreign companies and individuals, while subsidies for important goods will be taken away from most Cubans and means-tested for the most vulnerable.

In other words, he accuses Cuba of going down the capitalist road and betraying the working class along with socialist ideals. He is right, of course, and the government's new policy is a straightforward admission that the idiotic, "revolutionary" fantasies held over the past 67 years are worthless. How many lives have been wasted sacrificing everything in a heroic effort that has done nothing but enrich the Castro clan?

The nonsense spouted by Mr. Masson deserves its own post. I won't go into detail here. His article is a very clear illustration of how Marxists completely misunderstand capitalism. The bottom line is Mr. Masson wants a do-over--his solution is to subject another three generations of Cubans to ever more poverty and misery. 

Further Reading:

• Cosmetics, Cuba & Mary-Alice Waters
• The End of Cuban Civilization
• The Trotskyist Faction on Haiti

Envy Is Why They Hate The Jews

Source

An old Russian joke tells about a poor peasant whose better-off neighbor has just gotten a cow. In his anguish, the peasant cries out to God for relief from his distress. When God replies and asks him what he wants him to do, the peasant replies, “Kill the cow.” (Charles Colson)

Otto Fors is a Left Voice columnist who can barely conceal his antisemitism. He apparently believes that if he only substitutes the word "Jew" with "Zionist," then he is somehow rendered innocent of being antisemitic. Demanding "kill all the Jews" is too blatant, but executing all Zionists is perfectly A-OK. The conceit is while "Jew" is a racial/ethnic/religious category, "Zionist" is a political opinion--one that is punishable by death.  Any fair-minded person can see through the charade.

Mr. Fors contributes a piece in Left Voice with the sub-heading Establishment Democratic candidates are being defeated by anti-Zionist challengers. The movement for Palestine has made support for Israel toxic — let’s keep it up! There are at least two things wrong with this:

1. "Anti-Zionist challengers" should be replaced with "anti-Jewish challengers."
2. "Movement for Palestine" should be replaced with "movement for Hamas."

Since when did Hamas do anything for the Palestinians? They certainly did them no favors on October 7th, 2023 when Hamas murdered nearly 1200 people in an unprovoked attack on Israel. The entirely predictable Israeli response has not in any way benefited the Palestinians in Gaza. 

Hamas is loudly, proudly and unambiguously antisemitic. Their key demand is Free Palestine, which means a Palestine that is cleansed of Jews. The Jews should be expelled, or better yet, exterminated. Anybody who supports Hamas--as Mr. Fors does--supports the extermination of the Jews.

Mr. Fors quotes former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, who claims his opinion is "grounded in a sincere commitment to Israel’s future security and prosperity." In our comrade's opinion this convicts him of "Zionism." But why can't Mr. Fors champion Israeli prosperity? For any prosperity is better than none at all. The Arab populations in Israel and the West Bank are definitely richer than their counterparts in other countries because Israel is prosperous. Does Mr. Fors really think they'd be better off poorer?

And that's what reminds me of the Russian joke. Like the Russian peasant, Mr. Fors doesn't care at all if Arabs are impoverished. He just wants to kill the Israeli "cow," ie, the economy. He is not motivated by justice or well-being--his passion is purely envy. He doesn't hate the Jews because they're evil, but instead because they're successful.

Mr. Fors identifies himself as "...a college professor in the New York area." I googled his name and discovered no mention of him on any college faculty list. Sometimes adjunct faculty aren't listed by name, or perhaps he's an unemployed professor. Either way, the man is not successful in his chosen career. Presumably he has a Ph.D. degree, which means he's invested a huge amount of time in academia, and likely has no other skill that qualifies him for any other job.

Higher education is a shrinking or possibly dying industry, beset with all kinds of problems: demographics, artificial intelligence, and political polarization to name just a few. Getting a job in higher ed is really, really hard these days, so it's no surprise that Mr. Fors is a failure. Though he should've known better--all those years spent in a useless Ph.D. program should have been enough to teach him a thing or two.

Anyway, Mr. Fors looks up, and what he sees are a whole bunch of aging tenured professors in whose footsteps he wishes to follow. A lot (perhaps 30%) of those old folks are Jewish, who entered the profession (like me) a long time ago when the odds were much better. And our comrade is just green with envy! That is why he hates the Jews.

He's not alone. The two Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) ladies who upset longstanding Democratic incumbents in the recent New York congressional primaries are both rabidly antisemitic.

According to the NY Post

Scandal-plagued far-left congressional hopeful Darializa Avila Chevalier attended an anti-Israeli rally in the Big Apple one day after Hamas’ horrific Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, according to reports.

The 32-year-old radical with a twisted history of bashing Israel joined a hateful Times Square mob on Oct. 8, 2023, that torched the Israeli flag and flashed swastikas after hundreds of Jews were slaughtered by Islamic terrorists in a surprise attack on the Jewish state.

Chevalier, who is gunning for Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat’s seat in New York’s 13th House District, justified her attendance by declaring she is simply a lifelong advocate of Palestine.

Her colleague, Claire Valdez, is equally against the Jews, demanding an "end to the genocide." Odd because there is no genocide (only a small fraction of Gaza's 2.3 million inhabitants have died in the war), and the suggestion evokes the medieval blood libel against the Jews--that Jews suck the blood of gentile babies as part of their secret rites.

Anyway, will it surprise us that both of these ladies are frustrated academicians? From Wikipedia (footnotes omitted):

Avila Chevalier began a PhD program in sociology at the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, becoming a doctoral candidate by 2025. Her research has focused on immigration law and policy and incarceration in the United States, especially on the ways Black immigrants from Latin America have been affected by the US criminal justice system and deportation.

 and

Valdez received her Bachelor of Fine Arts from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, studying painting and art history. She worked a series of service jobs, including at Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Trader Joe's, before moving to New York City to pursue a career in art.

Neither these ladies nor Mr. Fors are members of the oppressed working class. Instead they're overeducated, no-longer-young adults who have discovered that all their book-learning has not delivered on the promise of upper middle class jobs in the professoriate. They take it out on the Jews.

Some months ago I read a terrifying article in Left Voice authored by Otto Fors. It described pro-Hamas demonstrations in the New York suburb of West Orange, NJ, which Mr. Fors described as "heavily Zionist." As mentioned, Zionist is his synonym for Jewish, and he is correct--West Orange is approximately 30% Jewish, including a large Orthodox community. According to Mr. Fors, the "Zionists" objected to pro-Hamas demonstrations in their public parks.

And they're right to be upset! Hamas' demand is the extermination of Israel's Jews, and if you take their slogan Globalize the Intifada literally, they demand the extermination of all Jews around the world, including those in W. Orange. In Mr. Fors' telling, the Jews were unreasonably objecting to the such antisemites rallying in public parks. The circumstance reminds one of Skokie, IL, where back in 1978 a group of Neo-Nazi protesters wanted to march through the Jewish suburb.

I made a mental note of the article, intending to comment on it, only to discover that it had been scrubbed from the web. Perhaps my memory deceives me--maybe there was no such article? Maybe Mr. Fors didn't write it? If somebody knows better, please message me in the comments. But I think the mask slipped too far--the piece was just too obviously an embarrassing expression of rank antisemitism.

Because the claque of failed academics who write for Left Voice hate the Jews--Otto Fors first among them. It's a passion born of envy.

Further Reading:

• Left Voice Antisemites Speak Out
• Iranian-American Demands Death to Israel
• Left Voice Demands 5 Things of UAW's Shawn Fain

The SWP Throws In the Towel

 

"The SWP opened its 2026 International Conference here June 11-14 ...  SWP National Secretary Jack Barnes, at podium, gave the political report. Seated, from left, are SWP leaders Paul Mailhot, Mary-Alice Waters and Steve Clark." (Photo & caption from The Militant)

Founded in 1928, The Militant (published by the Socialist Workers Party) has been the unwavering champion of Revolutionary Socialism, standing in the tradition of Marx, Lenin, and above all, Trotsky. Leon Trotsky, aka the Old Man, took a personal interest in the paper and the Party's worker-Bolshevik cadre. Many SWP comrades lived, worked, and/or studied with Trotsky during his exile in Coyoacan, Mexico, including James P. Cannon, Farrell Dobbs, and most prominently, Joseph Hansen.

Party comrades went to jail for their opposition to US involvement in WWII, accused of violating the Smith Act. The convictions were later overturned as the Act was ruled unconstitutional--the first of many civil rights cases where comrades were victorious. The Party played a key role in the 1960s civil rights movement, long championing Malcolm X. The Party-run Pathfinder Press was Malcolm's first publisher.

The SWP reached its height during the Vietnam war, growing to as many as 3000 comrades. It played a key role organizing the antiwar demonstration on April 24th, 1971, the largest ever antiwar demonstration in US history. Together with the 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters' strikes, this was one of only two occasions when the Party exercised political influence well beyond its small size. It is during Vietnam period that the majority of today's comrades were recruited--I also date from that time.

Jack Barnes, who turns 85 this year, has been national secretary (the vaguely Stalinist term for CEO) since 1972. That's 54 years in office--a tenure that's much too long. (There is at least a hint of corruption resulting from such a long tenure.) He and his one-time squeeze, Mary-Alice Waters, were both recruited to the Party in 1960 from Carleton College, where they were members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Defense of the Cuban "Revolution" has been a raison d'être for the movement ever since.

Though things are getting increasingly desperate for that benighted isle. The Militant rises to the "Revolution's" defense with headlines such as Build protests now to defend Cuba’s sovereignty! US hands off Cuba!, authored by Mr. Barnes himself. More pathetic is Join protests, demand: ‘US hands off Cuba!’ The picture shows a dozen or so elderly people forlornly standing up for Castro's kleptocrats.

“Hands Off Cuba!” picket at Federal Building in downtown Minneapolis June 3, called by area Cuba Committee. It was one of dozens across the country, worldwide. (Picture & Caption: The Militant)

The Party's position is that ALL (100%) of Cuba's problems are due to the US blockade. But the blockade is simply the icing on the cake. The country was founded on the principle of stealing from rich people. Not surprisingly, all the rich people left and built prosperous lives for themselves in Miami. Having squandered the wealth of rich people, the Castroites started stealing from the middle class. In particular they reduced skilled professionals to slaves. For example, in terms of purchasing power doctors in Cuba only earn between $15 and $20 per month! (According to ChatGPT)

Needless to say, the middle class has now fled the country--can you blame them? In particular, anybody with the technical skill to maintain the electrical grid is long gone. So no wonder Cuba can't keep the lights on anymore.

As the Castro government cannibalized economic infrastructure (eg, Cuba went from being the world's largest sugar exporter, to--in some years--being a sugar importer) the country depended on handouts. These initially came from the Soviet Union, and then subsequently from fellow kleptocrats in Venezuela--both regimes longstanding enemies of the United States. The Soviets even put nuclear-tipped missiles on the island, aimed at the USA. Apparently the Chinese use Cuba for electronic spying. So no wonder Uncle Sam is kind of pissed, and is finally doing something about the problem.

So Jack and Mary-Alice are getting really old, and the Cuban lodestar is fading fast. There is no younger leadership. Oh, there is, namely the comrades of my generation, who are roughly 10 years younger than the decrepit duo. Whatever--there doesn't appear to be any succession plan, and it's too late for one now anyway.

Marco Rubio memorably describes Cuba this way:

Cuba's in a lot of trouble because, unfortunately for them, it's run by a bunch of incompetent communists. Being a communist is bad. Being an incompetent communist is the worst.

That's a fair appraisal of Cuba--but not so of the SWP. For the Party was at least competent--at least compared to all other Trotskyist grouplets. Their communist doctrine never accurately described the American economy--certainly not post-WWII. Today it's just totally wrong, as I've detailed at length in this blog. So it was never going to become a mass Party with the prospect of taking state power. Most recently they've been pipped by the Democratic Socialists of America--who are campaigning hard on antisemitism.

So today, the biggest accomplishment of the SWP is that they exist--just as the banner says. It appears they will outlive Cuba's kleptocratic "Revolution." Will they survive the passing of Jack Barnes? There are reasons to be skeptical. But I understand (from commenter John B) that they have several million dollars in the bank--so they'll probably soldier on until the money runs out.

Bonnie Weinstein Doesn't Understand Economics (and neither does the New York Times)

 

Cartoon posted by Zohran Mamdani in 2020

This post is about the lead article in Socialist Viewpoint by Bonnie Weinstein entitled Guns vs. Butter—It’s Our Choice. But before I get there I need to quickly explain the nine-month gap since my last blog post. 

[The short answer is cancer. The good news is that I am now completely cancer-free. I'm no longer getting chemo or immunotherapy or radiation. It's been a long road to get here, involving surgery, chemo, occupational- and physical- therapy. Because of the cancer I have lost the use of my thumb and two fingers on my right hand, meaning that I am no longer the fast touch typist that I used to be. Thanks to all that therapy I have recovered enough that I can type at about half speed. And that's fast enough--though when it comes to typing I'm no match for any of my Trotskyist friends except--perhaps--Jack Barnes.]

Whether measured by typing speed or quality writing, Comrade Weinstein is in every respect my equal or better. But she knows nothing about economics--and apparently neither does the New York Times. She writes:

A March 2, 2026, New York Times article by Katie Benner and Steven Rich, titled, “Five Takeaways on America’s Boom in Billionaires” included these facts:

• "Supercharged by Trump-era tax cuts and other policies that favor the rich, America’s wealthy minority has more power over the country than at any time in the last century.
• The richest Americans saw their net worth soar by 120 percent from 2017 to 2025
• The top one percent of American households, which have a minimum net worth of $11.1 million, now collectively own about $25.6 trillion worth of stocks and mutual funds, the same amount as the remaining 99 percent of the country, according to the Federal Reserve.
• Of the $25.6 trillion worth of stock owned by the one percent, more than half is in the hands of the top 0.1 percent.”
• And as for corporations, “Typically, fewer than one percent of corporations now account for more than 90 percent of corporate profits.”

I don't argue with her data, and unlike her fellow Trotskyists she actually cites her sources!

Ms. Weinstein's third bullet tells us that the top 1% own roughly half of all stocks and mutual funds. Most of the other half is owned by the upper middle class--or approximately the top 20%. They can be loosely defined as households that have a net worth of more than $1 million in assets, not including their primary residence. These are mostly people either retired or near retirement, who have spent their working lives paying into their 401K accounts. Some are younger who have well-paying jobs, while fewer are people of all ages who live very frugally and save most of what they earn, regardless of income.

Comrade Bonnie's statement--that the top 1% own half of all publicly traded assets in this country--is true. What she fails to point out is that the vast majority of assets are not publicly traded, ie, don't show up on any stock exchange. Walk down any busy street in Manhattan, and almost all of the restaurants you see are small businesses--where Mom does the cooking and Pop manages the front of the house. Yes, busy places hire employees--Mom & Pop can't do all the work themselves--but they're a long way from being listed on Nasdaq.

Only a small fraction of US companies are traded on exchanges. According to ChatGPT (for this and all subsequent data) the total market capitalization of publicly traded corporations in 2025 was between $60 - 65 trillion--of which half is owned by the top 1%. The price/earnings ratio for all public companies is about 21, meaning that companies are typically valued at 21 times earnings. That corresponds to about a 5% return on investment.

GDP is the measure of how much a society consumes in one year--ie, it is the total profit for the entire economy--which was about $31 trillion in 2025. Using the same PE ratio as for publicly traded companies, then the total capitalization of the economy as a whole will be 21 x $31 trillion, or $651 trillion! The fraction of that owned by the top 1% is ($25.6 trillion/$651 trillion) equals a bit under 4%. 

That's certainly a low estimate since the top 1% own many assets that aren't publicly traded, such as their homes and vacation homes, private jets, private businesses (such as, until very recently, SpaceX), etc. So increase the proportion to perhaps 10% or 15% of the economy that is owned by the top 1%. 

Being a Marxist, Ms. Weinstein is likely under the illusion that GDP measures total production in a given year. This is not correct: GDP is a measure of total consumption in a given year. Only final sales to the consumer count--eg, when a consumer buys a new car, that adds to GDP, but the sale of auto parts to the assembly plant does not contribute to GDP. When the cash register rings for the final sale to the individual customer is GDP incremented.

In addition to consumption, investment also adds to GDP. Investment refers to the building or purchasing of new plant and equipment--and should not be confused with the common use of the word, as in investing in the stock market. The latter involves no new plant or equipment, but is merely trading assets with other people. Marx accurately termed money saved in the stock market as fictitious capital, ie, it does not imply any real increase in production.

So it is surely weird that Comrade Bonnie measures the wealth of the billionaire class by citing the value of their fictitious wealth. And the term fits, since Elon Musk's net worth can fluctuate by billions of dollars per day depending on how the stock market does--it's hard to get more fictitious than that. So claiming that Elon is obscenely wealthy due to his huge stash of fictitious money seems ill-placed.

Since GDP is based on consumption, a much better comparison is to measure the Musk family's consumption compared to the rest of ours. And by that measure as well, Mr. Musk is wealthy, but nowhere near as obscenely so as his fictitious wealth might suggest. 

He likely doesn't eat any more than other citizens, though perhaps he consumes more expensive ingredients. Let's hypothetically double his food budget.

Mr. Musk lives in a mighty fine house--for which a top-of-line model sells for about $25 million. Perhaps he owns 2 or 3 or 10 such houses, but he can only live in one at a time. Let's say he has a primary residence and also a vacation home, for a total value of $50 million--the remainder are best described as a store of savings. The imputed rent for real estate of that value is about $2.5 million annually. Likewise for vehicles--he may own a whole warehouse full of expensive cars, but he can only drive one at a time. Suppose he buys one $500,000 car every year for his own use. More, he travels on his own private jet, but most of this travel is a business expense. Nevertheless, suppose he splurges on vacations to the tune of $2 million annually. Etc.

No matter how you slice or dice it, it is impossible to imagine Mr. Musk spends more than $50 million annually on personal consumption--ie, his share of annual GDP. If the median family consumes roughly $62,000/annually, then Elon consumes about 800x more than the average American family. That's his drain on the American economy. The remainder of his wealth--fictitious or otherwise--is used to build products for other consumers.

So yes, Mr. Musk is a rich man, though he doesn't look at all like the rich guy in the cartoon. He doesn't behave like the cartoon guy either. The point is that Comrade Bonnie has absolutely no clue how American capitalism actually works.

Further Reading:

• Cosmetics, Cuba & Mary-Alice Waters
• "Primacy of the Working Class"
• Working on the Railroad