Giovanni Cortez

Contemporary Cuba
Response to “Socialism and man in Cuba”

Che Guevara’s “Socialism and man in Cuba” is a well organized and resounding

piece on the means and political principles by which socialists must effectuate to achieve

a true socialist state. He begins by simply explaining how the Cuban rebels overthrew

their antiquated government, and hence how the revolution begins. Expounding on how

the masses used the leadership of Fidel Castro as a vehicle to progress, Guevara states

that while this is the mere duty of a revolutionary figurehead, it is only the first step in a

long evolution of society. A new system cannot be implemented right away because until

the old state has diminished completely, society is too unsecured from perversion and

susceptible to the olden, capitalist disposition. It is point he harks on, that communism

cannot be achieved without total conscious rebirth. He calls this belief the “new man”

and the importance/role of the younger generation of Cubans, to be brought up after

revolution, is consequential.

In the section titled “New revolutionary generation”, Guevara states: “We can try

to graft the elm tree so that it will bear pears, but at the same time we must plant pear

trees.” What he is referring to is that the fault of many intellectuals of Cubans,

revolutionary or not, lies in the notion that they are not “true revolutionaries”. The

concept is perhaps a bit elusive, as to whom explicitly he means, but I pose that he is

referring to the current generation and their exposure to the old, individualistic and

oppressive system. Regardless of their political stance subsequent to the revolution, they

are still in a transition state, conditioned to some degree of first world, money oriented

mentality they once experienced. He calls it the “original sin”, of which new generations
will be free of, a generation pure from the corruption of capitalism. He speaks to a reality:

capitalism fosters indolence in its youth. Something we can attribute to as US natives,

work is seen as a punishment and not a reward, adversarial to his vision of a “new man”.

This conviction extends into the concepts of productivity. Our system commends the

creative and imaginative, but to what measure are these qualities held and how of this

work is productive? As young artists, and transitively defected to adulthood, we are

applauded for craft and ability, and feel accomplished on those grounds, but many of

times fail to develop (and encourage) a social compass. Does this matter and/or am I

challenging anything? Regardless of the answer to that, what’s worth exploring is what

motives us as Americans: where the capital goes. Mainstream art that means nothing and

is nothing and celebrates more nothingness. We turn on the TV and simultaneously lower

our standards as to what it means to be both a producer and relevant. The trophy in it

follows the money and why aspires to question to society when that isn’t what makes us

technically successful as people?

As opposed to the treatment of American children, Guevara wanted to treat the

Cuban youth in accordance with their aspirations, as a collective people to create and

mold each other to communism just as much as the system does; we conversely are

acquainted with this notion that the world is individually ours with hard work being the

instrument. Because of this, many of us turn misguided and fall into disillusion. When we

are told we are required to be producers, this marginalizes art as a powerful tool to

combat the oppressive system, where only “those who play by the rules of the game are

showered with honors”. It produces a defeatist mentality uncritical of the cause, only

disconcerted by a symptom.