TP: 1st January 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution. What would you consider to be the major successes and failures of the revolution over the past 50 years?

MG: To have survived 50 years of economic and political siege is the greatest achievement of the Cuban Revolution. Cuba's health and education systems are widely praised. The Literacy Campaign of 1960 reduced illiteracy to virtually zero in little over a year. Basic health provision is good and universally available. Furthermore, Cuba's survival has given hope to all those threatened by U.S. imperialism. However, its dependence on the Soviet bloc, undermined Cuba's plan for autonomy. Nonetheless, Castro was always able to maintain room for manoeuvre in the relationship. In my view, the central problem of the Cuban revolution is its failure to have to developed a genuinely democratic grass roots political system, having instead concentrated political control in the hands of a small unaccountable minority.

In your latest book Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution', you appear critical of some aspects of Che's actions and beliefs. You also offer a critique of the course of socialism in Cuba since 1958. Could you please explain your criticisms a little?

For me, socialism means the 'self-emancipation of the working class'. It is more than just an alternative economic model; rather it is a wholly new political culture in which the majority become the masters and mistresses of their own destiny. Every act and every decision taken should lead towards this objective. The Cuban revolution has survived and has made important advances despite economic siege and armed assault. Yet today, a majority of Cubans feel alienated from power, which continues to be administered by a tiny minority who are not accountable to anybody but themselves. The reality, in my view, is that the political strategy which successfully led to the overthrow of Batista was a command model: a form of socialism introduced from above, in which the fundamental question of democracy was never posed by Fidel Castro or Che Guevara.

What significance do the ideas of Che Guevara have for today's politically polarised world?

The significance of Che Guevara for a modern world probably has less to do with his ideas than with his life, and his death. A generation of anti-capitalists that cannot remember him wears his image with pride because he has come to represent selfless commitment and unrelenting conviction. Yet, he was a political leader and thinker whose actions and decisions, both right and wrong,have much to teach future socialists and activists. Given his commitment to the creation of a new and different society, his role in developing a political strategy for Cuba and Latin America was also crucial. In my view, that strategy was flawed but, we have much to learn from engaging with his ideas and his critical role within the Cuban revolution.

Fidel Castro, both revered and reviled by many, led Cuba for half a century. How will his leadership of Cuba be remembered?

It should be said that while Raul has now taken his place, Fidel remains at the heart of Cuba's political life. Few figures provoke as much loyalty or as much opprobrium as Fidel Castro. For the conservatives in the US and their anti-Castro Cuban allies, Fidel is a constant reminder that the giant has feet of clay, that the world's most powerful nation was unable to destroy the Cuban revolution. For Latin Americans, Fidel is a figure of admiration for the same reason. He symbolizes the possibility of defying the imperial giant. Yet Fidel's unchallenged leadership of Cuba, over nearly 50 years, has created a centralized and hierarchical system of power. The criticisms from the right have no credibility given the way in which U.S. democracy has been manipulated, most spectacularly by George W Bush. For those of us in the tradition of 'socialism from below', however, the absence of a genuine socialist democracy is a central concern.

Although Raul Castro has only been president of Cuba for a little over 5 months, he has initiated a series of major reforms such as allowing the sale of computers, DVDs and mobile phones. Is this the beginning of major changes for the people of Cuba or even a move to a more market orientated economy?

The reforms introduced by Raúl Castro may well prove to be short-lived, as his 26th July speech this year suggested. In any event, the reforms were in many cases simply a recognition of an existing reality - the existence within Cuba of two parallel economies. Anyone with access to dollars could buy consumer goods - witness the cars circulating in Havana's streets. The growth of tourism since the early 1990s created a dollar economy, but for the majority of Cubans, who earn their wages in pesos, consumer goods were not available and little beyond the basic provisions of life was accessible. This led to a murmuring resentment. While mobiles and DVDs are now more widely available, only some Cubans can buy them. On the other hand, it is a sign of Cuba's participation in an international market economy. Raúl is an enthusiast for China - the Chinese miracle has been achieved without political freedom and by intensifying exploitation. That is the law of survival in the world market. It is imperative that workers have the means to resist the imposition of those conditions, and that requires political freedom.

Do you believe the US stance towards Cuba will change depending on who becomes president later this year, or will the US administration continue pushing for regime change in Cuba?

It is astonishing that after 50 years Cuba remains under siege by the United States and that this policy has not been challenged by a single occupant of the White House. The Clinton administration made some small concessions on food and medicines but nevertheless reinforced the economic embargo. Obviously there has been some optimism at the prospect of an Obama presidency, but I would suggest we do not hold our breath. Just as he has reassured the Israeli lobby that he will continue the policies of previous regimes, so he has already visited the Cuban-American National Foundation in Miami to reinforce his commitment to maintaining pressure on Cuba. It seems that despite the death of Mas Canosa, the intransigent anti-Castro lobbyist who was very close to all previous presidents, little will change in Washington.

What predictions can you make about Cuba's future? How do you predict the country will develop over the next 50 years?

Predictions are a matter for fortune tellers and psychics, all the more so when looking 50 years into the future. It seems to me, however, that now - as ever - Cuba's fate is interwoven with Latin America. The failure to achieve wider change after the 1959 revolution drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets, with all the consequences flowing from that. What Venezuela, and in particular Bolivia, have placed on the historical agenda is a new concept of revolution based on mass movements and grass roots democracy. This has implications for Cuba too, if it is to become part of the Latin American revolution of the 21st century. For that to happen, a political debate has to begin within Cuba and a new political leadership emerge, one that is committed to a socialist transformation of a different kind - democratic, open and shaped from below. That movement will create its own priorities and will produce its own organs of a genuine popular power - which is why the future is so unpredictable.

Mike Gonzalez is Professor of Latin American Studies at the University of Glasgow.

Cast your mind back nine years to a time when the Labour party had recently stormed to power and a wave of public optimism still swept the nation. We may have been duped but back then Labour did implement some radical reforms. Now, as the poorest members of society are struggling to cope with rising food and utility bills, it is time for the government to revisit one of its most successful policies, the minimum wage.

It is clear that the introduction of the minimum wage improved the circumstances of many workers, and even Conservative critics now back the policy, with the predicted negative impact on businesses never materialising. £5.52 per hour, however, is no longer enough and as the minimum wage has failed to increase in line with inflation its impact has diminished.

Labour should now go further. Introducing a national living wage - which allows anyone in full-time employment to enjoy an acceptable standard of living - would do more than any of the policies being mooted at present to tackle the impact of the ‘credit crunch’ on the poorest workers.

London is already leading the way with its own living wage. Without enforcement, however, the majority of employers have understandably chosen to stick with the national minimum wage. The Living Wage Employer Award hopes to change this. Stephen O’Brien, joint president of London First, described the award as “a new and much anticipated mark of socially responsible business practice". “A growing number of high profile organisations are now part of the Living Wage Employer Group and London 2012 is set to be the first ever living wage Olympics.”

While the benefits of a living wage for workers and society are obvious – social cohesion, higher living standards, lower crime levels, improvements in health, greater incentive to work - there are also many benefits for employers. A KPMG report stated that since becoming a living wage employer the Royal London Hospital reduced its cleaning staff turnover by 50%. Furthermore, better pay means higher productivity and a happier and more motivated workforce.

Even Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who opposed the national minimum wage, is an advocate of the London living wage and earlier this year increased it to £7.45 per hour. “This is not only morally right but makes good business sense contributing to better recruitment and retention of staff, higher productivity, and a more loyal workforce with high morale,” he said. It is a sad state of affairs when a Tory such as Johnson is the one defending workers’ rights and the Conservatives are claiming to be the party of the poor. They will not fool many but there is, at the moment, no alternative.

London may have been an exceptional case in the past but nationally wages of average earners have remained almost static in recent years and those of the bottom third fell between 2004 and 2007. A national living wage would help to change these damning statistics. If Labour want to tackle poverty they should export the living wage to the rest of the UK. By implementing a national living wage, perhaps with regional variances, they would be able to help those most at need.

Business leaders would plead poverty themselves, as many did prior to the introduction of the minimum wage, but the cost would not have to sit solely with them. By increasing the tax free allowance the government could, in effect, pay much of the cost itself. Public opinion, for a change, would be behind them with a recent Harris poll showing that the majority of people favoured lowering taxes for the poor. The same poll also showed the majority in favour of higher taxes for the richest, but that would surely be asking too much from a government in thrall to the super-rich.

How to decide the level of the living wage would be a contentious issue. However, the results of a recent research project carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculated the amount of money required for a ‘socially acceptable standard of living.’ The report concluded that ‘a single adult, working full time, needs to earn £6.88 per hour to reach this weekly standard.’ The study also found that the minimum income standard calculated was higher than the current threshold for relative poverty. The government’s already poor record on tackling poverty, therefore, is even worse than current measures indicate.

Julie Unwin, director of the foundation, said: “This research is designed to encourage debate and to start building a public consensus about what level of income no one should have to live below.” If Labour, whoever their leader is, want to regain the trust of core supporters and improve their chances before the next election they need to be the party leading this debate. Back in their heyday they fought hard to introduce a national minimum wage; they should now do the same for a national living wage.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report can be found at the following address: www.jrf.org.uk/kowledge/findings/socialpolicy/2244.asp

Countries in South America are constructing a new international financial system, said the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, after meeting with Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva in Buenos Aires on Monday.

Along with this, Chávez announced over the weekend that the recently nationalized Bank of Venezuela will be expanded to serve more municipalities in Venezuela and emulate the model of the Caixa Económica do Brasil, the largest state-owned bank in Latin America, with assistance from Brazilian officials.

“We are amidst a world financial crisis, that is why the creation of a new financial-economic system is necessary,” Chávez said in a press conference in Argentina.

Chávez also met with Argentine business leaders to improve commercial ties and discuss the projects with Argentina’s National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTI). One such project is a contract with INTI to construct 200 “socialist” factories with Argentine technology, 30 of which are planned to be underway this month.

The agreements include technical assistance and training of Venezuelan officials through a contract with Venezuela’s renovated National Institute for Socialist Education and Training (INCES), to strengthen Venezuela's training programs for the newly acquired technologies.

“We are determined to industrialize Venezuela and I know that you are ready to re-energize the industrialization of Argentina,” Chávez told Argentine business leaders Monday.

President Chávez suggested that after Argentina and Venezuela consolidate these projects, they might work together to “spread these marvelous projects to other countries that need it.”

In addition, Chávez proposed a bi-national investment fund with Argentina that “would be a powerful motor” for the integration of the two countries. Venezuela has already purchased several billion dollars worth of Argentine debt in the past three years, and the two countries have signed economic accords to exchange Venezuelan energy for Argentine food.

Venezuela is currently launching similar bilateral investment funds in team with Iran, Russia, and China. Chávez highlighted the Chinese Development Bank’s $4 billion contribution to the bilateral investment fund with Venezuela last November as another sign that a new international financial system is taking shape.

A further indication of Venezuela’s burgeoning financial networks on the South American continent is Chávez’s plan to model the Bank of Venezuela after the Caixa Económica do Brasil, which serves 33.6 million Brazilians mainly from lower income strata. Last Tuesday, Chávez and several federal ministers held a private meeting with representatives of the Caixa.

“One of the plans I have with the Bank of Venezuela, once it is nationalized in the coming weeks, will be to municipalize it, so that it reaches the whole country,” Chávez explained Sunday.

“Here, there are many municipalities that do not have a banking agency,” he continued. “We must copy the good experiences, making adaptations to our particularities,” he said, referring to the Brazilian bank.

Chávez added that the bank shall be “an ultra-modern entity” that will benefit “not only the rich and the middle class, but also the people.”

The Caracas stock market index rose by .37% on Tuesday, compelled in part by the rally of 6.67% in Bank of Venezuela stocks, according to Reuters.

Finally, concerning Venezuela’s eminent membership in the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), for which congressional approval from both Brazil and Paraguay is still needed, Chávez highlighted during the press conference in Buenos Aires that those who oppose the admittance of Venezuela are not the majorities of either country, but rather “very well-defined political sectors” who are working to “impede unity.”

James Suggett writes for Venezuela Analysis.

What sort of free country is it where the government can just order workers to leave their families and homes and send them to another part of the country? The Iraqi government is using Saddam’s anti-union laws. But weren’t we supposed to be setting the Iraqis free? That’s just a story for children.

The Iraq government is a miserable bunch of quislings. They are in government only because British and American weapons put them there. The occupying imperialists are the real power in Iraq.

The British government is behaving like Pontius Pilate. When questioned about the forced transfer, the Foreign Office says, ‘it’s the law.’ But it’s the dictator Saddam’s law, the law we were supposed to be in Iraq to overthrow.

John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, said: "The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions has been leading the opposition to the sell-off of Iraq's oil and these members are clearly being targeted for their political actions. We believe the British government should work for the safety of Iraqi trade unionists, not be complicit in their persecution."

In a letter to Howells, he asked: "We would also like you to state whether the British government in any way condones the transfer of trade unionists into dangerous areas as a method of "tackling their activities, whether legal or illegal".

Hassan Juma'a Awad, an IFOU spokesman, claimed the transfer was ordered by Shahristani, the Iraqi Oil Minister, himself. We wonder what he is getting out of giving away his country’s oil. Hassan went on,"Those activists, through their hard work, are well known for fighting corruption and corrupt-ministry gangs in the oil sector," he insisted, adding that the transfer amounted to a "human rights crime". He is right.

This article appeared on Socialist Appeal.

VoteStrike.com has put forth plans for a General Strike beginning on 11th September 2008, which is quickly gaining a tremendous amount of support. Chris Rice, Founder of VoteStrike, said, “General strikes shut down the normal operations of a city, state, or nation for a period of time. These strikes aim to force action on a single issue or broader set of concerns. The reason for this shutdown is not to hurt this country in any way, but is in fact a peaceful method of sending a message to Washington, DC.” As support for this sentiment grows daily, the strike’s appeal has increased worldwide.

The membership, now over 160,000 includes many active military, lawyers, doctors, dentists, nurses, teachers, anti-war activists, independent truckers, people in the impeachment movement. Much of the international membership is coming from peace activists in Italy, France and the UK.

Blogs and websites supporting and featuring material from VoteStrike.com include Global Pundit, Rebel Pundit, Just Another Cover-Up, Pledge To Impeach, CoffeehouseStudio, Existentialist Cowboy, Dream Antilles, Paul Peterson Blog, IVAW, and OpEdNews. Rice points out that, as with very large protests against Iraq, the lead up to a general strike will most likely be blacked out by the US media.

According to Rice, “The General Strike is a national call to action, from citizens to other citizens. It’s not about a single issue. It is not just an anti-war protest, a gas price protest, a civil rights protest, and election fraud protest. It is not just about torture, surveillance, corporate media, or the environment. This strike is about all these issues and more.” Rice states that, when you perceive the country's greatest threats as emerging from political corruption, all these issues are unified.

VoteStrike.com is calling for people to participate by refusing to shop, go to work, go to school, and instead to non-violently protest and engage in acts of non-violent civil disobedience nation-wide.

Rice feels that the issues highlighted by the strike have not been addressed in a meaningful way by any branch of government. The VoteStrike.com website reminds people of this admonition from the Supreme Court: "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error: it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” -US Supreme Court, in American Communication Association v. Douds, 339 US 382, 442

Rice hopes that the strike will embolden the public and provide a message and motivation to politicians. It is not intended to bring harm to any people or nation. He says that he chose 11th September because of it's value as a symbol of manipulation of the public by corrupt interests.

A position paper by VoteStrike.com describes the core issues of the strike as follows:

"The manipulation of the public to support wars that enrich wealthy people, but with a horrifying cost in lives and suffering.

The conversion of the two-party system into an illusion of choice in which the public is unable to gain adequate representation in areas such as civil rights, health care, and preservation of sufficient opportunities for economic well being.

The loss of integrity in the media, which has become a highly orchestrated means to manipulate the public.

The lack of a sincere quest for solutions that are in the interest of the public. There are many symptoms of this. One lens to look through is how money is extracted from the public to feed the appetites of wealthy backers of our only two viable political parties. Point this lens at illegal drugs, and you see massive amounts of money flowing as a result of the drug trade coupled with our so-called "war on drugs" that drives up drug prices and feeds the increasingly privatized justice system, our covert operations, and indirectly lines the pockets of our politicians. One gruesome result is an extraordinarily high incarceration rate (particularly among young Black men). This is one of many examples. The take away message is that the public is being, in a sense, harvested and discarded by interests that are not committed to the welfare countries they operate in.

The strike is largely a response to the escalation of corruption and mistreatment of citizens, such as wholesale domestic spying, extraordinary rendition, and torture.

The specific action we support is a general strike that will make a statement. We encourage attendance at rallies and protests and a complete cessation of consumer behavior and work from Thursday 11th September through that Sunday. We hope that as the public begins to realize that they have untapped power, that action will become more widespread and focused in the future.

The result we are seeking is for our government to respond to pressure to be more representative. If successful, we would see actions such as more serious election reform, a true investigation and criminal prosecution pertaining to the network of corruption behind the war in Iraq, real health care reform, and similar bold steps."

Specific steps for action, and a great deal of historical and present day supportive material can be found at www.VoteStrike.com

As soon as I have finished this column I will jump on the train to Kent. Last year Al Gore remarked “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.” Like hundreds of honorary young people, I am casting my Zimmer frame aside to answer the call.

Everything now hinges on stopping coal. Whether we prevent runaway climate change largely depends on whether we keep using the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. Unless we either leave it in the ground or leave the carbon dioxide it produces in the ground, human development will start spiralling backwards. The more coal is burnt, the smaller are our chances of future comfort and prosperity. The industrial revolution has gone into reverse.

It is not because of polar bears that I will be joining the climate camp outside the coal plant at Kingsnorth. It is not because of butterflies or frogs or penguins or rainforests, much as I love them all. It is because everything I have fought for and that all campaigners for social justice have ever fought for – food, clean water, shelter, security – is jeopardised by climate change. Those who claim to identify a conflict between environmentalism and humanitarianism have either failed to read the science or have refused to understand it.

Our government could lead the world in one of two directions. Roughly one third of our power stations will come to the end of their lives by 2020. It could replace them with low-carbon plants or it could repeat – this time in full knowledge of the consequences – the disastrous decisions of the past. E.on’s application to build a new coal-burning power station at Kingsnorth is the first for many years. At least five other such proposals hang on the outcome. Between them they would account for 54 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year: as much as the entire economy would produce if the UK, in line with current science, were to cut its emissions by 90%.

The government seems determined to make the wrong decision. It has inherited the party’s traditional love for coal, but, being New Labour, now supports the bosses not the workers, and has colluded with them to make the case for a new generation of power stations. It has one justification for this policy: that one day dirty coal will be transformed into clean coal by means of carbon capture and storage (CCS). All that is needed to effect this transformation is a sprinkling of alchemical dust, in the form of the future price of carbon. The market, it claims, will automatically ensure that coal plants bury their carbon dioxide, as this will be cheaper than buying pollution permits.

Last month the House of Commons environmental audit committee examined this proposition and found that it was nonsense. It cited studies by the UK Energy Research Centre and Climate Change Capital which estimate that capturing carbon emissions from existing coal plants will cost 70-100 or 90-155 euros per tonne of CO2. Yet the government predicts that the likely price of carbon between 2013 to 2020 will be around 39 euros per tonne. Even E.on believes that it won’t rise above 50 euros. “The gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS”, the committee finds, “is enormous.” The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, confessed to the MPs “I hope that the strengthening of carbon markets … will bring forward a sufficiently good price for carbon that it will provide some of the financial incentive for CCS. Will it be enough? I do not know.”

This is the sum of government policy: to cross its fingers and hope the market delivers. If it approves a new coal plant at Kingsnorth, it will do so on the grounds that the power station will be “CCS-ready”. CCS-ready seems to mean nothing more than this: that there’s enough space on the site for a carbon capture plant, should the developer deign one day to build it. The committee warns that this meaningless promise could be used “as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability.”

The government has already shown us what it wants to do. In January, Gary Mohammed, a civil servant at the business department, emailed E.on to ask whether he should include CCS as a condition for approving its new coal plant. (This gives a fascinating insight into how government works: companies are asked to write their own rules). E.on replied that the government “has no right to withhold approval for conventional plant”. Six minutes later Mr Mohammed answered thus: “Thanks. I won’t include. Hope to get the set of draft conditions out today or tomorrow.”

There is a simple means by which the government could ensure that our future electricity supplies would not commit the UK to stoking runaway climate change. It would do as California has done, and set, by a certain date, a maximum level for carbon pollution per megawatt-hour of electricity production. This would have to be a low one: perhaps 80kg of CO2. Then, in line with the government’s precious principles (or absence thereof), it could leave the rest to the market. I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen, as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be.

But I believe the likely response would be more interesting than this. Several recent studies have shown how, through maximising the diversity of renewable generators and by spreading them as far apart as possible, by using new techniques for balancing demand with supply and clever schemes for storing energy, between 80 and 100% of our electricity could be produced by renewables, without any loss in the reliability of power supplies. Unlike CCS, wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro and geothermal power are proven technologies. Unlike nuclear power, they can be safely decommissioned as soon as they become redundant.

A policy like this requires both courage and vision. So look at the current cabinet – Brown, Straw, Darling, Hutton, Blears, Kelly, Hoon - and weep. Every man and woman with backbone was purged from this government years ago, leaving those who know how to appease the interests that might threaten them. These people won’t stand up to business, even when the future prospects of mankind are at stake.

If fear is the only thing that moves them, we must present them with a greater threat than the companies planning new coal plants. We must show that this issue has become a political flashpoint; that the public revulsion towards new coal could help to eject them from office. You could do no better than joining us at Kingsnorth this week.

This article first appeared in the Guardian newspaper on 5th August 2008. The article with full footnotes also appears on [Monbiot.com]. Details of the Climate Camp action are available at www.climatecamp.org.uk.