Obviously, Kim, a revolution is not embedded in one human.

However, those concerns were not the point of what I wrote.

I was trying to address a more general, methodological point - to wit, can you talk meaningfully about Castro’s role – as one person among the people of Cuba AND as the leader of all the people of Cuba – without specific reference to the time of which you speak. This “time” might be days, it might even be weeks or months; but certainly it is not years or decades, and certainly not when speaking of Fidel Castro and the Cuban people and the United States. Because the threats both external to Cuba and internal that the United States presented to the Cuban Revolution have varied so enormously from Moncada, say, to November of 2007.

Were I clearer about the “anarchism versus term limits” points in your piece, and were I to try and address them directly, I would start by pointing out that the role of a military leader vis-à-vis the people fighting with him/her, and as one of the persons fighting, is very various. And the role varies enormously with the intensity of the physical threat these persons perceive, and its proximity. Varies in the leader’s mind and varies in the minds of troops and potential troops. And always as the physical threat and the perceived physical threat varies in historical time. In Cuba and Fidel’s case, varied from the walls of Moncada (and before) to the victory marches in Havana to the Bay of Pigs to the Missle Crisis; thru the literally hundreds of attempted quiet solutions, the poisoned cigars, etc; varied during the entire period which continues today of the blockades – whose intensity and effects in Cuba have not been a constant or a uniformly changing phenomenon over the decades. Etc, etc. Respectfully, Kim, I never meant to say that “the factors that put Castro in power in 1959 have substantiated his holding power until present times…”

I guess what it comes to is this. I wish you’d left out of your article that one long paragraph about La Gente Cubana y El Jefe; and it would be nice to read another Kim Petersen article in Dissident Voice, less philosophical and more historical and dispassionate, on the subject of that one paragraph.

Michael, you are arguing for participatory democracy in Venezuela. I’m with you. I would like to see that participatory democracy extended to the people: let the people be the decision-makers. It is new as parecon and old as Brooks Farm.

Anarchists don’t hate all leadership, but they want a say for everyone in the decision-making. How can class differences be wiped out when if anarchists were to set up a leadership class? The statement about children raising themselves is silly. Arguably, children should, as much as possible, have information accessible to them and to have input into their upbringing.

You ask: “why can’t people choose to follow, as well as be involved?” So you argue for the shepherd and the sheeple? At any rate, if an informed people opt for a leader, it is their right. But they must also have the option of sharing equally in the decision-making, and that option is not offered to the people.

My article did not “carp” about Chávez. It cast no aspersions on this man with the guts to take on US imperialism. It argued for the empowerment of people, the involvement of an informed people involved in the decision-making. Or are people to put all their eggs in the basket of one person? Is that one head better than the heads of the masses of people?

JE, the article is not about a term limits. It is about the need for empowerment of the people, the equal right of people to be involved in decision-making throughout society.

JE, the “what if Hugo Chavez might one day become a dictator” is your conjuration. What I am concerned about is not Chávez, but which leader may come after him. Look at history. Look what happens when a movement or revolution becomes invested in the leadership of one person. Look what happened to socialism in China after Mao’s death, or socialism in the USSR after Gorbasjov fell from power. Do you know who is waiting in the wings after Chávez? I don’t know. Therefore, I rather see a movement taking directions by decisions reached by the people. After leaders die or are deposed, the people still remain.

Steve Jordan, as for why Cuba is a “democracy”: simply, they hold free elections like other democracies in the world.

You demonize Chávez as a “caudillo” and ignore all accomplishments during his tenure in government: medicare for the people, literacy of the people, rights to basic food stuffs extended to the people.

Lloyd, I raised the questions about Castro’s long hold on leadership to address whether such was in the best interests of Cubans. What is the message: that one person can be placed above the rest of the people in society to make decisions? Second, US imperialists have seized upon the long tenure of Castro to speciously paint him as a dictator.

You pose the question: “How did Fidel perceive the only threat to the Revolution’s existence – the United States – in terms of his continued leadership and the alternatives to it?” I submit that that answer should not be the sole prerogative of Castro, but that it is a decision for the Cuban people to make.

“Historical time?” Respectfully, are you saying that the factors that put Castro in power in 1959 have substantiated his holding power until present times? Does Cuba not function still under his brother?

Binh, we probably don’t differ much. Term limits is secondary to the thrust of the article. I don’t want sheeple: people reduced to being followers exercising a vaunted vote for a so-called representative every few years. I am pushing for granting the power of leadership/decision-making to the people. I am arguing for the people to lead. Maybe Chávez will someday entrench this step in the future.

So it’s not OK for him to change his mind on this issue? Obviously we agree that “the people” (or for me more specifically, the workers) have to be the Revolution’s “deciders,” but term limits take away that power from them. There are many organizations within the revolutionary movement that are fighting to push the revolution beyond the bounds that Chavez has so far been able to set for it. See:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/54/chirino.shtml
http://www.isreview.org/issues/54/venezuela.shtml

“If Fidel Castro were a great and selfless leader, would he not have relinquished the reins of power long ago? Would he not have insisted that the Cuban Revolution is more powerful and more durable than any leadership invested in one man? Could he not have stayed on in the Communist Party and played the important role of a fatherly guide to safeguard the revolution and insure the well being of the people? It may well be that the majority of Cuban people desire Castro to have continued as the Cuban leader since 1959 and that this confers legitimacy on Castro’s tenure as leader. Nevertheless, a great leader must always place the interests of the people and society above the vainglory of power. Arguably, Castro’s remaining in power for almost five decades has given US administrations a target for their specious accusations that Castro is a dictator (untrue; Cuba is a democracy4). This has served to make it easier to economically strangle Cuba (a form of collective punishment, which is forbidden by Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions).”

The paragraph’s first three sentences are The Questions and are variants of one question: “How did Fidel perceive the only threat to the Revolution’s existence – the United States – in terms of his continued leadership and the alternatives to it?” Regrettably you pose this question outside of historical time, as if it could be addressed by abstract political theory; whereas in historical time – for example, in the slice of time between 1959 when Fidel visited Harvard, and 1962, when JFK risked Cuba’s extinction – most Cubans’ perceptions of the US must have changed, and changed in many different ways.

The rest of the paragraph contains no questions, but finally mentions a date, although it is 1959, and although you mention that date as the first year of an incredibly eventful period of “almost five decades.” To which period your non-historical conclusions are supposed to apply. It’s not surprising that you couch your persistent, political theory argument at this point in terms of “Arguably.” And even resort to arguing with yourself – “(untrue; Cuba is a democracy).” I happen to agree that Cuba is a democracy (and I thank the forces that be that Cuba’s form of democracy is not a variant of Democracy As We Know It). But so what? You’ve already said that the issue which Cuba’s being a democracy contradicts is just….arguable.

If ever a manual is written about how to produce prose for endlessly confused discussions on the internet, this paragraph would make a great introduction.

The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans believe he should to stay on. And that’s good enough for me.

Steve Jordan your contempt for people is contempt for democracy. It is elitists like you that make Chávez such a necessity.

Here in the States the powers of individuals at least is somewhat balanced and set against each other in a more neutralizing relationship called ‘Balance of Power” or diluted corruption.

And yes I agree that the average american voter is an idiot, but no more than any other country. that is human nature.

Term limits were actually reactionary “conservatives” response to New Deal Dominance in congress from the 30s to 70s…

Under the current framework that allows career politicians of the worst ilk to run a government the last thing you want is term limits. They are, however, a good way to encourage corruption and discourage accountability…

Besides, the fact that Kim would even buy into this “what if Hugo Chavez might one day become a dictator” banter is troublesome. It’s a worthless hypothetical. The whole idea of democracy, even indirect, is the people decide. As long as Chavez enjoys the support of a majority of Venezuelans in democratic elections then he should enjoy the privilege of being able to represent the electorate. The problem people have with this is his policies are so popular that it seems he will be able to stay in office as long as he chooses to. So what? The media wants to make this about Chavez to marginalize the importance his policies play in his popularity.

And why do you anarchists hate all leadership? Should children raise themselves? Is there such a thing as talent or special knowledge or skill? Why can’t people be allowed to recognize it and benefit from it, just to please some anarchist perfectionist principle? If the institutional checks are strong and open, why can’t people choose to follow, as well as be involved?

And why are you carping about Hugo Chavez, of all people in this fucked-up world? Do you think Venezuelan or any other Chavistas are a stupid lot who need your anarchist lectures? Curious for somebody whose philosophy is supposed to put trusting free people first…

Certainly Chávez has been an important figure in Venezuela … but that he is the only person who could have pulled off the political changes in Venezuela is beginning to sound like the cult of Chávez.

Chavez needs to stay in order to push through the reforms that will make him unnecessary. No one else can do it.

Binh, it was Chávez, himself, who initially decided there should be presidential term limits in the constitution, thereby barring himself from his own ambitions.

My point is that the people should be empowered through access to information and decision-making and not have to rely on one person.

Term limits are nothing but a doomed-to-failure effort on the part of people who are too damned lazy to get involved in politics beyond the effort required to cast a vote. They don’t fix anything.

You either haven’t thought this through (and your equation of Chavez and Castro — who has never exposed himself to popular elections — suggests this), or you are letting your anarchist confusions warp your own perceptions.

P.S. to Nasreddin: What the hell are you saying? That dictatorship is the answer? No thanks.