Similarities Between The Cuban Revolution And Marxism

The Cuban and Nicaraguan revolutions examined in this study show an association with the most profound processes of transformations. As established in the study, Cuba was more radical in bringing change to the society than Nicaragua was. Conversely, apart from the fact that the revolutions had distinct, idiosyncratic features. Both revolutions independently survived the hostility brought about by the foreign forces throughout their revolution process. Evidently, some of the differences and similarities originate from political dynamics and social changes as established in this paper.

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Today, instead of weaker Latin American countries being colonized by an imperial power like they were in history, they have been given the appearance of authority while Western

Selbin identifies the most important part of a social revolution is the transformation of the society that is broken up into two parts consolidation and institutionalization of a country (Selbin 13). Augusto Pinochet and Fidel Castro both tried to succeed in these aspects, but both had success in areas but also failures in others. Their rise to power, reign and their political ideology separated them on a fundamental level, but they did have some similarities.

On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro and his band of rebels overtook the Cuban government. Their Revolution was based on massive agrarian reform and equality throughout. It was not based on Communism or communistic ideals. The US government was against the rise of Castro and his people. They had been able to control the Cuban government by controlling the successive presidents, since the Spanish-American War early in the 20th Century. The rise of Castro was undertaken with a distinct anti-American flavor to it. Castro was able to expand his popularity by fusing the anti-American fever with massive reforms intended to give social and economic equality to all Cubans. The economic presence, of the US, within Cuba was great at the time of Castro’s

In the early 19th century, Latin American countries broke free from the shackles of European colonists and started independence movements to form their own nations. At first the idea of freedom to start their own countries —politics, free trade and all— was enticing. But, Latin Americans soon learned that the Western European countries and the United States tried to take advantage of them financially at any opportunity that arose. Newly independent countries like Mexico, Venezuela, and Honduras tried to get themselves on the map and raise their wealth through exporting the natural resources found in their countries. While they tried to emulate the United States and Western Europe, liberals like Sarmiento and Porfirio Diaz failed due to the

Gonzalez was in Ecuador and was asked to speak at a conference for the World Festival and Youth of Students he said he wasn’t too sure what his topic would be.” My topic could range anywhere from lifting of the unjust blockade on Cuba the freedom of the ‘Cuban Five’. The main reason we’re here is because we want a revolutionary progressive movement that leads to socialism,” he said. He is now a cadet in a military school and studying engineering. He is now and outspoken Castro supporter blaming the U.S. for Cuba’s economic crisis. Like Elian’s mother many people have died trying to come into the U.S. for a better life.

In Nicaragua the regime of the Somoza’s proved to be a regime resulting from corruption. The elite received benefits from the Somoza’s rule, but most of the money gained went to the president. Unhappy, the workers began creating revolutionary groups, the most prominent being the FSLN, but were not very successful in fighting corruption due to the elite support of the government. The elite did however turn to support the FSLN, but turned on them when they feared their wealth and power may be jeopardized. All of this corruption fed into a vicious cycle in which socioeconomic disparities between the wealthy elite of Cuba and Nicaragua enjoyed prosperity while the working mass’ standard of living and share in the economy lessened considerably. In all three revolutions we talked about the revolutionaries just want to better their country and ultimately their standard of living, but are time and time again shot down by the elites because of the amount of power and wealth they

The Cuban revolution was a revolution of contradictions (Class notes, March 3rd). This highly debated revolution is said to have started in 1959 when Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries forced Fulgensio Baptista to flee the island allowing for a new revolutionary government, however others have argued it started in 1953 when Fidel Castro first attempted armed insurrection, or in the various failed rebellions of 1844 to 1933 (Chomsky, p. 15). Even the timeline of the Cuban revolution is prone to contradiction, as is so much and despite so many thousands of words devoted to the subject very little consensus has been gained. This topic is important because the Cuban revolution is still ongoing in Cuba, and through the march of time has endured where others have failed, remaining perhaps the most consequential revolution in history. Therefore it is important to try and examine Cuba, its origins, it’s history, and effect.

The life of Fidel Castro is forever associated with the story of the Cuban Revolution. In modern times no revolutionary movement is more identified with

Alberto Korda took two photos on March 5, 1960. One of the still frames would immortalize one of the most infamous and controversial ideologues to have ever lived. The image being draped over millions of shirts, posters, and most significantly the Ministry of the Interior building in Cuba. Che Guevara being celebrated by the Castro’s, and his ideals forced upon Cuba by them. The Castro family has held power in Cuba since the 1960’s. Cuba being ruled by Fidel Castro until recently his brother Raul took charge. Both men being disliked by the global public and Fidel Castro recognized as an evil dictator. What is many times overlooked was the fact that Che Guevara was just as pivotal to the sinister Cuban regime. Che had major effects on the abuse of a society, Cuban politics, and the justification of evil.

Castro and his 26th of July Movement took over Cuba’s streets in January 1959. Though Castro’s charismatic and vibrant personality quickly won him astonishing support, he knew that he had to consolidate his political power by ensuring the trust of the population. The consolidation of Fidel Castro’s power between 1959 and1961 was more of a result of domestic issues rather than United States economic policies.

These opposition, as it is discussed in Dawson’s textbook, was “Cuban in origin, [which] Castro managed to cast acts of sabotage, attempted assassinations, and any number of protests as the work of the CIA” (195). Fidel was fighting to get rid of all his internal and external enemies and according to him this would be possible by embracing a communism nation. Years after, the effect of radical economy policies caused Fidel to eliminate different professions and this made his enemies to go on exile, so the Kennedy Administration took this as an advantage and passed a law to give asylum to those Cubans who opposed the Fidel’s regime. However, it was interesting to know that it was an advantage to Fidel because he was able to get rid of the opposition. Later on, the importance that Fidel implement on getting of the opposition created organizations that brought young people and women to the struggle.

Marx argued that due to capitalism’s competitive nature, it would eventually die out and be replaced with a new form of government, communism. It is to Marx’s beliefs that change cannot simply occur through reforms or changes in government, rather a revolution in which the proletariat overthrow the bourgeois is necessary. Marx promoted the revolution, moving history towards its natural conclusion, through his ten proposals for a communist society. Among them include: a heavy progressive income tax, an exclusive monopoly of the banks under the state, transferring ownership of the modes of production to the state, a more equal distribution of the population over the country, and most importantly, the abolition of private property. Marx stated,” the theory of communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.” Marx acknowledged that this notion was radical and asserted that it is due in part to the liberal misconception that landowning is the fundamentals

The Cuban revolutionary movement is still remembered today as a significant cause of what has come of Cuba today but more importantly by the people who were involved. One who played a significant role for his effort to overthrow the Cuban and Bolivian government was Che Guevara. Che Guevara became involved in political change when he was on a trip in Cuba where he met Fidel Castro. At the time, Fidel Castro wanted to overthrow the government which was under control of Fulgencio Batista. Guevara’s admiration to Castro and commitment made him his second in command. Batista fled and Fidel Castro took over, while Che Guevara worked on sparking other revolutions throughout Latin America, one in specific which would be his last, was in Bolivia.