On recent changes in Cuba/U.S. relations.

“The United States will come to talk to us when you have a black president and the world has a Latin American pope.” 

The clock is no longer ticking towards the era where this quote by ex-Cuban president Fidel Castro becomes a reality. The shifting state of the relationship between the island nation of Cuba and the United States has been exemplified by the opening of a Cuban embassy in the U.S. for the first time since the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship in 1959. While we can't safely say that the embargo placed on Cuba by the United States will end, we can already see the conception of diplomatic interactions between the two countries. Hopefully in the near future we will finally see the end to the illegal, 53-year blockade on Cuba, which has relentlessly subjected the country to restrictions not just on it's export goods (tobacco and rum being the worst losses) but also necessary provisions for healthcare, monetary and financial trade, and access to new technologies - leaving the country in somewhat of a stasis. The fact that Cuba exists in a state of anything other than total humanitarian crisis, which is the unequivocal point of the embargo, is thanks entirely to the countries social-model; the free provision of all citizens with food, housing, education, and healthcare, regardless of pressure from international powers.

Even now that the Lefts dream of a Cuban flag emerging out of a sea of "Viva Fidel!"s and "Viva Cuba socialista!"s on the streets of Washington has been achieved, some are predictably still championing the position of defeat. On the day that international solidarity should be at it's strongest, accusations of betrayal, revisionism, and even senility against the Cuban leadership for daring to accept a deal which alleviates their people from just some of the afore mentioned restrictions, seems to illuminate the need for more sectarianism rather than less. If you would rather stay in the camp of defeat and fringe politics then that choice is yours. It's better you remain there than ask other people to fight to the last drop of their blood because you perceive them as ideologically inconsistent.

I should add that i'm not proselytising for the "opening up" of Cuba to American influence, nor should we equate bringing socialism into the 21st century to market-oriented socialism. I don't believe that route would be desirable for the Cuban people, nor do I believe it's what we'll get - Raul Castro has made it clear that they will not "negotiate their social system" and while the promise of the younger Castro doesn't quell all fears, it ranks as slightly more promising introduction to friendly relations with the West than "To get rich is glorious!".

Most importantly of all, the attitude which should be combatted is the harrowing glee from liberals that this change in foreign policy by the U.S will soon lead to Cuba emerging from the rubble of communism into an American-style parliamentary democracy - with it's very own CNN and O'Reilly factor of course! As the media confetti of any true democracy. Below the bug-eyed calls for "Freedom for Cuba!" (or the freedom for Levies and McDonalds to set up shop their anyway), a sinister mentality simmers; the assumption that Cuba, as it currently exists, is some kind of tyranny. While it is true that the nucleus of human rights abuses in the Caribbean does exist on Cuban soil, it has nothing to do with the Revolutionary government. The Cuban government has protested the presence of a CIA torture camp in Guantanamo bay for 36 years and each time the United States essentially replies with "What you gonna do about it?". Indeed the 53 years of sanction and sabotage by the U.S. has left Cuba in a state of siege and many democratic rights have been suspended, but regardless of how Cuba organises it's representation of it's people, the only form of democracy liberals will be happy with is one that includes the capitalists and kleptocrats of pre-revolutionary Cuba, who looted the country of it's wealth and subjected it's population to poverty and military repression.

Cuba will remain on the same path it has been for over half a century, and the celebrations of victory won't be drowned out by the grumbling of zealous ideologues or the opening of cash registers in preparation for a brand new exploitable market. Cuba will remain a beacon to the third world, as an example that you don't have to choose between the domination of Global capital or mass poverty. It's future will depend on how much it sticks to the original revolutionary ideas which liberated the country. Perhaps it's the case that this belated opening up is a tactical manoeuvre to inject neoliberal influence at the right time. Perhaps the old order will be returning to it's vomit soon. But for now, socialism will be exalted as more and more people will be lead by Cubas example that standing up to the West objectively pays off.

The Democrats: Party of war and mass murder.

So there's been quite a bit of buzz recently around Hillary Clinton announcing that she has begun her 2016 presidential campaign. Coming out on top of the Democratic parties nomination for presidential candidate with 65 percent of the poll, beating Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren by 10 percent.

It's pretty well established that democratic identification of minority ethnic and religious groups in the US sores in comparison to their Republican counterparts, with 64% of black americans voting Democrat while only 4% vote Republican. Does this make the democrats the party to represent religious minorities and people of colour? Fuck no.

It may be that Liberals and the so called 'left-wing' have been driven to Hillary in much the same way that many were driven to Obama; they represent something other than the typical old-white-male politician and people believe that a vote for them is some form of slight to the establishment. Problem is, social liberation and feminism are not interest groups to insert as many wealthy black/Muslim/latino/hispanic/female/trans/etc members into the ruling class as possible, the point is to dismantle the material conditions which are to blame for the oppression of minority groups and women in the first place. Supporting people who voted for the Iraq war will not bring any kind of liberation for the oppressed. If your feminism only advocates "strong woman" to be those who hold enough money and power to oppress and rule over the masses in the same way men historically have, then it is no feminism at all.

The Democrats have waged economic warfare against poor people and areas largely populated with black and latino people by supporting cuts on welfare and public services, proselytising for Neo-Liberalism, and supporting Americas imperialistic ventures around the World. Clinton said recently that she supports the deportation of the children of unregistered workers - completely ignoring her own governments involvement in destabilising the Latin-American continent, which has resulted in millions of people desperately trying to escape into the United States. Reminding us all of the price nations who resist U.S dominance pay; Cuban President Raul Castro highlighted some of the crimes committed in Latin-America by previous administrations. The role in which the United States government and corporations have played in dismantling the economies in Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin-American countries through the funding of drug cartels, military juntas, and private death squads still continues today.

On their own, in the past 8 years, the Obama administration and the Democrats haven't even attempted to hide their lust for war-mongering. Running on promises to immediately end the illegal occupation of Iraq and close Guantanamo bay, many Leftists including the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez hailed the coming of Obama as a sign of peace and an end to the violent stupidity of the Bush era. Instead, Obama lead the United States into another profit-war in Libya which fragmented the country and brought about a power vacuum in which violent Islamic extremists who lynch black people have been given free reign, he backed the FSA extremists in Syria who eat peoples hearts and lungs, film it and then behead Priests who are members some of the most ancient Christian communities in the World. He promised apartheid Israel $30 billion over the next decade, supported the fascist-lead Maidan "Revolution" in Ukraine, and has supported various attempts at a military coup in Venezuela. That was the price the global population had to pay for Americas vote for Obama - the "cool" President.

Western liberal blood-thirst isn't exactly a new emergence either. The list of Democratic blunders and crimes span well before the noughties and the Cold War. President Wilson was the one responsible for American involvment in World War 1, in which 116000 American troops were killed, Truman dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing between 60-80 thousand people, JFK attacked Cuba and caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, Johnson brought liberty to Vietnam in the form of napalm and missile strikes, and Jimmy Carter backed the Indonesian and Iranian military dictatorships. Now suddenly we're expected to see the Clintons and Obama as champions of youth and liberty? When they've had as much of, if not more of a part in not only the previously mentioned international crimes, but also domestic crimes? Like spying on the U.S and foreign public via the NSA and re-signing of the Patriot Act, which gives the state the ability to hold people indefinitely in prison without trial all under the name of "anti-terrorism". But it's all forgiven because Obama will make jokes about the Lion King. He's down with the kids, yo.

There is no "progressive" section of the ruling class. There is no "lesser of the 2/3/4/5/10 evils". The only division between the Democrats and the Republicans lies on which specific interests within the ruling class they support and on how they best may expand said system. Don't believe me? Just look at who's paying for Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign next year. Voting for the 'slightly-less-bad' political representatives of the Bourgeois only gives credence and legitimisation to their system, and to the false belief that capitalism can simply be reformed.