We were left with a question: how is it possible that at the end of a Congress (the first post-Fidel) all focused on two objectives - "actualización" and "relevo" - Cuba has issued a ruling group that, in terms of senility, obscure the memory of the Soviet gerontocracy and mocked? Many readers have written them.
And this is my opinion. The mystery is explained by analyzing, as well as the congressional rhetoric, the true meaning of the words that define the objectives set out above. "Actualización", is also not in the lexicon Castro, who too subversive alternative to the term "reform". Or rather, is the word that most aptly defines the need for change in a regime that needs to change (or reform) can not allow himself without destroying precisely the myth in which he was trained (and stopped ).
"You have to change everything you need to change," said Raul Castro. But - has been added - none of these changes may call into question the "socialist nature of the regime. And that's why 45 proposed outputs from the discussion pre-conference (the only ones, presumably, that deserved the title of "reforms") have been quashed without debate behind the closed doors of Congress.
Like Sicily, Tommasi di Lampedusa, in short, the Cuba of the Castro brothers is not change for change. Changes to save "his" socialism. A socialism that, well beyond the imitation of the Soviet system, is always essentially been a survival technique. As for the "relevo", it is not - as with some candor Raúl has admitted in his brief speech of "enclosed" - which the indication of something that should be there, but that is not there.
An idea for the future, a prospect that has as a prerequisite, paradoxically, the exact opposite. And that is to say, permanence in the power of "historical group." Why, he essentially said Raúl, only the historical group - the one who embodies the deepest values of the revolution and that, as Raúl has admitted, it is now almost reached the end of its life cycle - can now prepare that changing of the guard did not train in the middle (and pass) the century of his tenure of power.
Even better, the only historical group can be prepared - avoiding the plunge into the underworld of capitalism - that changing of the guard who has deliberately frustrated, systematically decapitating all possible "dolphins" and any possible "relevo. How, in fact, demonstrated by the numerous tombstones that mark the path of revolution.
Tombstones true, as in the case of General Armando Ochoa, shot in 1989 as part of a great purge (masked by the process of drug trafficking) of the armed forces from the evil influences of the Soviet perestroika. And tombstones metaphorical, since the Cuban revolution has mostly devoured their children, not sending them in front of "paredón", but more discreetly sentenced to a premature "to plan pjiama" pajama top, as those parts is called the most or not early retirement from political leaders.
Carlos Aldana, arrembante number three in the regime of the late eighties and early nineties, now runs a small business government in Havana. Roberto Robaina, in his time a brilliant young foreign minister, he painted landscapes in his home in Marianao. Carlos Lage (makers of tough economic days of the "periodo especial") operates a small medical center in the capital.
And Felipe Pérez Roque, another of the possible "dolphins" trained in the "grupo de apoyo en jefe the master" (those loyal to Fidel) was recycled as a mechanical engineer in a small factory on the outskirts habanera. All were more or less, champions of orthodoxy. Yet everyone - guilty because of having too close to the throne, od'avere too eagerly "tasted the honey of power," as two of them said Fidel Castro, just a couple of years ago - are now only stardust, fragments of a common "parts" that was not ...
So, what about Raul? What is this? An illusion? Last deception of communism, the Cuban, who was sentenced to die without heirs of its intrinsic biological nature of his being an inextricable part of life (physical existence) of its creators? Or else? I close this question once again proposing to readers .... 
And this is my opinion. The mystery is explained by analyzing, as well as the congressional rhetoric, the true meaning of the words that define the objectives set out above. "Actualización", is also not in the lexicon Castro, who too subversive alternative to the term "reform". Or rather, is the word that most aptly defines the need for change in a regime that needs to change (or reform) can not allow himself without destroying precisely the myth in which he was trained (and stopped ).
"You have to change everything you need to change," said Raul Castro. But - has been added - none of these changes may call into question the "socialist nature of the regime. And that's why 45 proposed outputs from the discussion pre-conference (the only ones, presumably, that deserved the title of "reforms") have been quashed without debate behind the closed doors of Congress.
Like Sicily, Tommasi di Lampedusa, in short, the Cuba of the Castro brothers is not change for change. Changes to save "his" socialism. A socialism that, well beyond the imitation of the Soviet system, is always essentially been a survival technique. As for the "relevo", it is not - as with some candor Raúl has admitted in his brief speech of "enclosed" - which the indication of something that should be there, but that is not there.
An idea for the future, a prospect that has as a prerequisite, paradoxically, the exact opposite. And that is to say, permanence in the power of "historical group." Why, he essentially said Raúl, only the historical group - the one who embodies the deepest values of the revolution and that, as Raúl has admitted, it is now almost reached the end of its life cycle - can now prepare that changing of the guard did not train in the middle (and pass) the century of his tenure of power.
Even better, the only historical group can be prepared - avoiding the plunge into the underworld of capitalism - that changing of the guard who has deliberately frustrated, systematically decapitating all possible "dolphins" and any possible "relevo. How, in fact, demonstrated by the numerous tombstones that mark the path of revolution.
Tombstones true, as in the case of General Armando Ochoa, shot in 1989 as part of a great purge (masked by the process of drug trafficking) of the armed forces from the evil influences of the Soviet perestroika. And tombstones metaphorical, since the Cuban revolution has mostly devoured their children, not sending them in front of "paredón", but more discreetly sentenced to a premature "to plan pjiama" pajama top, as those parts is called the most or not early retirement from political leaders.
Carlos Aldana, arrembante number three in the regime of the late eighties and early nineties, now runs a small business government in Havana. Roberto Robaina, in his time a brilliant young foreign minister, he painted landscapes in his home in Marianao. Carlos Lage (makers of tough economic days of the "periodo especial") operates a small medical center in the capital.
And Felipe Pérez Roque, another of the possible "dolphins" trained in the "grupo de apoyo en jefe the master" (those loyal to Fidel) was recycled as a mechanical engineer in a small factory on the outskirts habanera. All were more or less, champions of orthodoxy. Yet everyone - guilty because of having too close to the throne, od'avere too eagerly "tasted the honey of power," as two of them said Fidel Castro, just a couple of years ago - are now only stardust, fragments of a common "parts" that was not ...
So, what about Raul? What is this? An illusion? Last deception of communism, the Cuban, who was sentenced to die without heirs of its intrinsic biological nature of his being an inextricable part of life (physical existence) of its creators? Or else? I close this question once again proposing to readers ....
No comments:
Post a Comment