​Since the 1959 Revolution, the United States has sought to overthrow Cuba's socialist government by any means necessary. From the Bay of Pigs invasion and hundreds of assassination attempts against Fidel Castro to the six-decade blockade, the relationship has been defined by U.S. aggression.
​
The 1960 memorandum from Lester Mallory, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, made the reasons for this aggression clear: to strangle Cuba economically and create discontent internally that could be channeled against the popular government.

Yet the current situation could produce an unprecedented effort to overthrow Cuba's democratically elected government. The reasons go beyond what is often portrayed in the media as merely Marco Rubio's personal agenda, forged by the anti-Cuba lobby in Florida.

While Rubio’s presence certainly heightens the stakes, there are objective reasons why the U.S. has its attention turned to Cuba. After all, it isn’t just Cuba whom the U.S. has its eye on in the region, to greater or lesser extents, it has maneuvered to remove left-wing governments all across the Americas, from Bolivia, Honduras, Colombia, and Venezuela, where President Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped and jailed in the United States.

Cuba is a central node in the operation to return the Americas to being the docile “backyard” of the U.S., which was outlined in the Monroe Doctrine. Since this has intensified with Trump’s presidency, many analysts are labeling it the “Donroe Doctrine.”

The U.S. is facing a period of deep crisis. Its existence as a state for decades has been intertwined with its geopolitical position as global hegemon. But as the world transitions into multipolarity – a transition spearheaded by China, Russia, Iran, etc. – the U.S. experiences this as an existential threat to its global power, that is, to the force it could exert over countries to give up their raw materials and mineral wealth through imposed unilateral trade “deals.”

It would be erroneous to think that for the U.S. this is merely a problem of “foreign policy.” It hits at the very center of what the American state is. The crisis is not just one the U.S. faces abroad but at home too.
The failure of the U.S.-NATO proxy war against Russia and the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is accelerating this decline in the U.S.’s global power. More countries in West Asia, Africa, and the Americas are turning to China and Russia as key trading partners who offer them “win-win” deals, not unilaterally imposed arrangements. Under this predicament the U.S. has tried even harder to secure its influence in the Americas, which it considers to be the last global hemispheric region it could have virtually total control over.

So, why a renewed and more intensified pressure on Cuba? There are two reasons, both tied to this objective crisis.

The first is economic. In 2025 a report by the U.S. Government Geological Survey outlined the most important minerals for national security and new economies. Amongst those listed are nickel and cobalt, which Cuba just so happens to have one of the largest reserves in the world, ranking fifth in cobalt and third in nickel. Combined with the reserves Cuba has of oil, gold, and with its strategic geographic positioning in the intersection of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean, there are clear economic motives for a U.S. declining in global influence to be turning its attention more aggressively toward Cuba.

In addition to what Cuba provides in terms of crucial minerals, resources, and geographical positioning, Cuba – as a result of the crippling sanctions – has a labor force which, under conditions of U.S. control, could be employed for pennies on the dollar of what companies could pay Mexican or American workers. The cost of producing with a Cuban labor force could be extremely low if Cuba’s sovereignty is lost in U.S. aggression.

The second reason is symbolic. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has been seen as a bastion of resistance to capitalism and U.S. imperial aggression. The symbols of the Cuban revolution, such as the Cuban flag, the flag of the 26th of July movement, the faces of Fidel and Che, are flown across the world, from West Asia, Africa, and the Americas. For hundreds of millions – if not perhaps billions – of people around the world, Cuba’s existence as a socialist state ninety miles off the coast of the United States is a sign of almost biblical resistance, of David resisting Goliath. If Cuba falls, the global forces of anti-imperialist resistance would be terribly demoralized.

It is for such reasons that the preparations for an attack on Cuba are a threat not only to Cuba, but to all countries who value sovereignty and the emergence of the multipolar world. How the world, especially those spearheading the transition to multipolarity, decides to react to U.S. aggression toward Cuba will dictate how bold the U.S. will be in exerting its will unilaterally across the world.

Author
​
Dr. Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American Professor of Philosophy who received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He serves as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Party and as a Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist-Leninist think-tank in the United States. Dr. Garrido has authored a few books, including Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview (2022), The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism (2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), and the two forthcoming texts, Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Western Marxism (2026) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2026-7). Dr. Garrido has published over a dozen scholarly articles and over a hundred articles in popular settings across the U.S., Mexico, Cuba, Iran, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, Peru, Canada, etc. His writings have been translated into over a dozen languages. He also writes short form articles for his Substack, @philosophyincrisis, and does regular YouTube programs for the Midwestern Marx Institute channel. He is on Instagram @carlos.l.garrido

To mark the 105th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, Xinhua decided to ask several friends of China for their opinions on the CPC.

Jean-Pierre Page Interview by Xinhua News Agency.
 
Jean Pierre Page worked at Air France, served as a member of the CGT’s Confederal Executive Committee[1], and headed the CGT’s international department. He is the author of several books, including *Masters of the World* (co-authored with Chomsky, Samir Amin, and Georges Labica) on the war in Yugoslavia, as well as several books on China, including *China Without Blinders* (co-authored with Maxime Vivas). Since 2004, he has served as editor-in-chief of the journal *La Pensée Libre*.
 
 
1. On the CPC’s Self-Revolution
 
CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping has defined “self-revolution” as a way for the CPC to break free from the historical cycle of decline. In your view, what insights does this “self-revolution” offer to political parties around the world?
 
In an article published in late 2024, President Xi Jinping discussed the concept of self-revolution, as he often does, in a concrete, clear, and compelling manner.  Indeed, this is a major issue—I would even say an existential one—for any communist party, both for its credibility and for the substance of its commitment and that of its members. It is about winning over the broad masses and giving meaning and substance to their historic struggles. From the Taiping Rebellion to the Long March, the history of the Chinese people’s struggle against feudalism and imperialism and for their liberation is rich and profound. President Xi Jinping takes this into account. This is therefore linked to his own conception of the party’s role. The party must define itself clearly through its function, its purpose—I would even say its utility—and its history. A Communist Party, more than any other party, is a living, militant body, organized according to principles and centered on a vision grounded in the role of the working class as a revolutionary class. Its objective is to unite the people by breaking with the old capitalist order and with the ambition of building a new order: a socialist and communist society. Not one without the other.
 
To achieve this, it must rely on the capacity of each of its members—who share common values centered on an ideal and an ambition—to build upon a program and concrete objectives that take into account the history of the entire people, their class struggles, their victories as well as their failures, and the values that are their own. That is why the party and its members must be directly engaged with a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, be capable of taking initiative, assume their responsibilities as communists wherever they find themselves, be attentive, listen to and learn from the masses, be creative, take into account reality—and thus the balance of power, life, and the needs of the people as a whole—and therefore take into account history, diversity, culture, differences, and contradictions within it. This living organism that the Party must be has to take into account both the strengths and weaknesses of each and every one of its members—their successes as well as their mistakes—and how these must be corrected through patient and rigorous collective work. Criticism and self-criticism are fundamental practices for every communist, regardless of their level of responsibility.
 
I believe that this is precisely what President Xi Jinping means by “self-revolution”—that is, the guidance given to every member of the Chinese Communist Party, without exception, so that they may hold themselves accountable with the aim of improving their political practice through concrete actions and daily conduct that must be exemplary. In this way, they will help strengthen the party’s cohesion and unity. This requires a great deal of personal effort, particularly in the constant study and practical application of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and Xi Jinping Thought. Consequently, in my view, this approach—or, one might say, this concept—applies to every communist party in the world. Of course, it is up to each party to decide how it operates, taking its own history into account. There is no single model, but it is always important to draw on the experience of others.
For the parties of the oligarchy that represent the interests of capital and the bourgeoisie, the situation is different. Their political goal is quite distinct. Serving a handful of parasites is not the same as serving the entire people.
 
Chairman Mao Zedong, in his famous essay “Serving the People,” liked to say, “All men must die, but the weight of death can vary.” The ancient Chinese writer Sima Qian said, ‘Although death befalls all men alike, it can be heavier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather.’ To die for the people is a death heavier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is a death lighter than a feather.
 
If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid of having them pointed out or criticized, for we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who they are, may point out our shortcomings. If they are right, we will correct them. If what they propose benefits the people, we will implement it.
 
2. On Strict Party Governance
 
In many countries, ruling parties have long been plagued by bureaucratization, the ossification of interests, and a disconnect from the people. Do you believe that the CPC’s efforts to promote strict and comprehensive Party governance offer new approaches for political parties worldwide to resolve this dilemma of long-term power?
 
That observation is accurate! In France or elsewhere, no organized political or social force is immune to this trend, which is obviously dangerous—especially when it comes to democracy. This therefore applies to communist parties as well; no one is safe from these destructive tendencies. We recall the words of the German playwright and writer Bertolt Brecht: “The people do not understand party politics, so we must change the people.” This troubling evolution in political practices is synonymous with bureaucratization, a disconnect from reality, corruption, ambition, careerism, institutionalization, and the professionalization of political and union life alike. It affects all parties and unions without distinction, including communist parties, within which some are more concerned with fighting for positions than with the class struggle.
 
Thus, for a communist party, renouncing or distancing itself from the principles of class struggle always has consequences—not only in terms of its influence through its relationship with workers and their families in workplaces and neighborhoods, but also in the very way it functions. Distancing oneself from the concerns and needs of the people almost always comes at a very heavy price. This is the case in most European countries, with a few exceptions, where the decline of certain communist parties—due to strategic errors, the abandonment of communist principles, and operations influenced by bourgeois ideas—deprives the people of the means to defend their interests.
 
 As a general rule, we must add—and this is a new phenomenon—a very alarming level of mediocrity and political illiteracy among political figures in the broad sense of the term— . For my part, I believe that this is yet another manifestation of capitalism’s systemic crisis. Especially since no Western country is spared; we are witnessing an unprecedented deterioration of political life, where principles and rules are disappearing and anything goes. This is very alarming! In his fable “The Animals Stricken by the Plague,” our great 18th-century fabulist La Fontaine wrote: “They would not all die, but all were stricken.” It’s a bit like that.
 
On another level, we do not attach the same meanings to the same words—such as the word “governance.” In developed capitalist countries, governance is an abstract concept in its formulation but highly one-sided in its definition and application. For Western governments and states, there is supposedly only one conception of governance--one that is universal—and that is their own. There is therefore no concern here with democratically taking into account the experience of other states. Yet we all have much to learn from one another. No one can dictate their vision and methods of government to another. There is no doubt that many political parties around the world would benefit from learning from and drawing on the long political experience accumulated by the rich Chinese civilization. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, for what still prevails in many Western countries is arrogance, self-satisfaction, and the conviction that their actions are divinely ordained and must be imposed on the rest of the world. The President of the United States is the perfect illustration of this—with added vulgarity.
 
This alarming trend is leading to widespread disengagement from political life across Europe. This approach to politics provokes such rejection that many citizens resort to abstaining from elections or supporting racist, extremist, and fascist parties. This is the case in France, where only slightly more than 50% of the population participates in elections.
 
3. On a People-Centered Philosophy of Development
 
In many parts of the world, the policies of political parties are easily hijacked by capital, factions, or interest groups. In your view, what is the significance of the CPC’s commitment to a people-centered development philosophy in reshaping the value systems of political parties?
 
The 2026 Forum on Global Human Rights Governance was recently held in Beijing; I attended and spoke there. Nearly 300 participants from 91 countries were in attendance. The event also marked the40thanniversary of the United Nations’ landmark documents on the Declaration on the Right to Development. For my part, and taking the compelling example of China, I would say that poverty eradication and human rights are inseparable from the legitimacy and effectiveness of the socialism being built in China. This historic mission echoes the story of how Yukong moved the mountains--a legend that Chairman Mao Zedong liked to cite when speaking to the Chinese people about the two obstacles of feudalism and imperialism that they had to face. Nearly eighty years later, the Chinese people have risen, and the concrete results stemming from the choice of socialism are helping to transform the status quo in this five-millennia-old continental nation, where Confucianism remains a point of reference that Communist leader Xi Jinping likes to cite.
Your country’s success can also be appreciated on the international stage, as, on the one hand, capitalist countries are turning to China for aid and assistance—as is the case with France and Germany, among others—and, on the other hand, the rest of the world seeks to free itself from the stifling control of the West and its institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, or NATO. While China may not be a model, it is an example with undeniable values for peoples seeking alternatives for development.
Through its achievements, China lends indisputable credibility to socialism and encourages a renewed reflection on it. Its contribution—all the more so with a Communist Party at its helm, boasting nearly 100 million members, for whom the “dictatorship of the proletariat” remains one of the ideological cornerstones—is, in many respects, instructive. Consequently, we can state without fear of contradiction: socialism works, and China is living proof of it! Between rising powers and declining powers, “the Thucydides Trap” is therefore not a figment of the imagination. It can be viewed as either a risk or an opportunity.
4. On the Relationship Between Party Building and State Governance
 
 
How do you assess General Secretary Xi Jinping’s assertion that “Party building must advance in step with the development of the Party’s and the people’s cause”? Does this demonstrate that Party building is not merely a partisan matter, but a crucial aspect of the state’s capacity for governance?
 
In building socialism with Chinese characteristics, President Xi Jinping emphasizes the practical nature of the pace of development and consistently stresses Party building. Aligning these two approaches into a single effort requires strong political will on the part of leaders, particularly the leader at the top. President Xi Jinping has no shortage of such will. This is a core conviction of his. We must move forward with the people, helping to guide their actions at their own pace, rather than marching kilometers ahead of them. This choice and this approach have greatly contributed to China’s political stability, which is, moreover, one of the strengths underpinning its development, the cohesion of its multi-ethnic people, and its continued adherence to the principles of socialism. Take human rights, for example: they are not some “extra” aspect of the soul, a mere formula, or a slogan, nor should they be a political weapon in the service of hegemony, as is the case in Western countries and in the United States in particular. As for their implementation, the credibility of the Communist Party’s actions, its influence, and its organized strength are at stake—both at the state and government levels and at the local level in villages, neighborhoods, enterprises, and rural areas. Everywhere, the Party’s presence is decisive. The results achieved are further proof of the strength of socialism with Chinese characteristics, led by a Communist Party worthy of the name.
 
 
5. On the Fight Against Corruption and Political Leadership
 
General Secretary Xi Jinping has led the fight against corruption with a sense of responsibility summed up by the saying: “I would rather offend thousands of people than disappoint a population of 1.4 billion.” What kind of leadership does this approach reflect? What lessons does the CPC’s track record in the fight against corruption offer political parties around the world in their quest for stable governance? 
 
Self-reform and the fight against corruption go hand in hand. President Xi Jinping has rightly made this one of the priorities of his administration. To allow corruption to persist is to allow inequalities to grow, to let a life of ease and personal enrichment take root for a select few at the expense of the vast majority of the people, and to increase tensions and the risks of destabilization. There can be no corrupt individuals without those who corrupt them. We must therefore address both the causes and the consequences—this is the responsibility of every communist. Refusing to do so leads the country into a dead end. The countries of Eastern Europe and the USSR itself experienced such abuses, which led to a estrangement from the people and their interests; this was not unrelated to the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, we have since seen how these trends, far from being resolved, rapidly worsened under capitalism. The example of Ukraine—arguably the most corrupt country in the world—is proof of this. Above all, this is profoundly contrary to the concept of socialism and to what should be the ethics of communists, whose behavior and work must be exemplary.
 
In Western countries, corruption at all levels of government, political parties, and labor unions is wreaking havoc; it has worsened exponentially and involves institutions and businesses as much as it does individuals. There is no shortage of examples, and scandals are most often the manifestations of this problem. Furthermore, there is a culture of impunity that provokes legitimate anger among the people, especially when the state practices a lenient and permissive form of justice toward the powerful—a two-tiered justice system—and here again, there is no shortage of examples. Lobby groups play a significant role in influencing institutions; at the European level, there are more than a thousand of them, and corruption is one of their methods. This alarming situation continues to worsen and undermines the credibility of those institutions and individuals who speak at length about democracy and respect for human rights but who, in practice, consider themselves above the law.
 
6. On the Synergy Between Party Building and Socioeconomic Development
 
From poverty reduction to rural revitalization, including green development, the CPC integrates its leadership throughout the entire process of national governance. In your view, what does this reveal about the relationship between “Party building” and a country’s socioeconomic development?
 
From this perspective, China has just published its National Action Plan on Human Rights 2026–2030. This is, of course, a political event of the utmost importance for China, but more fundamentally, it is a concrete response to those in the West who claim to define human rights. As the CPC demonstrates, human rights and the right to development must have a concrete definition, and this vision must contribute to the substance of the Party’s actions. What would be the point of talking about human rights to peoples, to men, women, children, and the elderly who are deprived of an income, a job, or a roof over their heads—things that would allow them to live, receive an education, and receive medical care with dignity? Similarly, what good would it do to glorify the CPC if these same people are unable to appreciate the usefulness and effectiveness of its actions? Defending the promotion of human rights means fighting against inequalities—all inequalities. This therefore calls for a concrete definition linked to the right to development. This is a major objective of socialism and, consequently, the responsibility of a communist party. There is thus a profound coherence in China’s vision and its definition of human rights—through its precise approach to economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil, political, and environmental rights—just as there is in its conception of the role of a communist party.
 
7. On Theoretical Innovation and Cultural Roots
 
Xi Jinping’s thinking on Party building is both rooted in Marxist theory and nourished by the wisdom of traditional Chinese culture. What insights does this approach to theoretical innovation offer to parties in other countries to strengthen their own Party building in line with their history and culture?
 
President Xi Jinping has established himself internationally as a head of state of undeniable political stature. I would say he is a man of vision, principles, reconciliation, and concrete alternatives. He is also a man of great culture and open-mindedness. His passion for reading is well known, particularly for French literature. The two cannot be separated. We might add—and this stems from his youth and the years he spent living among poor farmers—that, as he says, he learned a great deal and came to appreciate the richness of Chinese civilization. Chinese thought, the place it occupies in universal culture, and the ideas of certain philosophers such as Confucius and Laozi have profoundly shaped and influenced not only China but all of humanity. Moreover, President Xi Jinping received a gift from France to which he is particularly attached: a book titled *Confucius and the Science of Princes*, published in France in 1688. 
 
As communists, we must take this dimension of history and thought into account—not to reject it in an artificial and sometimes violent manner, but to acknowledge it because it is an integral part of the people’s way of thinking. It is, moreover, a valuable contribution to the development of civilizations in all their diversity. This, I believe, is the meaning that President Xi Jinping intends to give to the actions and thought of the CCP, which is an important and stimulating contribution to Marxist thought. Above all, I note that he is not only a man of reflection but also a man of action; not a man of rhetoric but of concrete achievements—one who takes reality into account as it is, not as we imagine it to be. When he speaks of a “community with a shared future” and “win-win outcomes,” he is addressing the world and its nations, taking into account the tremendous upheavals we are witnessing on the international stage. If we consider the New Silk Roads (BRI), in which nearly 150 countries are involved and which are now concrete infrastructure projects around the world, I believe this is a compelling illustration of how Xi Jinping’s ideas translate into real life and the needs of the people.
 
The French writer Victor Hugo once said, “We need a mind vaster than the sky.” I believe this captures quite well what should be a political and intellectual challenge for many countries around the world—for their leaders, as well as for all political, economic, and social forces. We do not choose the era in which we live; we must know how to rise to the level of what it demands. President Xi Jinping is a prime example of this; he has this ambition for China as well as for all of humanity.
 
​---
[1] The CGT, “Confederation Generale du Travail,” or General Confederation of Labor is a major French union.

Author

Jean-Pierre Page is a French author and trade union activist.

Addressing the National Assembly of People’s Power on July 29, 2026, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez declared that the United States is destroying the pillars of international law that have guided world affairs since the Second World War. The United States is determined to impose its will on the sovereign governments of the world through a variety of means, including coercive economic measures and military aggression. The leadership of the United States demonstrates that it has not learned the lessons of history.

Confronting this situation, the Cuban Foreign Minister declared, Cuba has the duty and the right to defend its sovereignty. All who come to the defense of Cuba, in defending the principles that must guide humanity, are defending humanity for all time. Cuba will continue to defend its sovereignty, while maintaining willingness to negotiate differences with the United States on a basis of mutual respect.

The text of Rodríguez’s address follows. I have taken the address from the Website of the National Assembly of People’s Power and translated it from the original Spanish.

The international political context in which our Revolution defends and represents the interests of the people has been aggravated significantly.
​
The government of the United States has taken the decision to break from and destroy International Law, the United Nations Charter, and the pillars that emerged from the Second World War, which for more than eighty years have guided the relations among States, on the basis of respect for sovereignty and the formal principle of the sovereign equality of States.

It has demonstrated, in addition, its relative and temporary capacity to impose its will on diverse governments, above their sovereign and constitutional prerogatives, by means of intimidation, coercion, and particularly the utilization of unilateral coercive measures and punitive commercial tariffs.

It has resorted to military aggression, wars without any justification, the bombing of civilian populations, the kidnapping of a Chief of State in office, political assassinations, State terrorism, “regime change,” and unconventional war.

They base this conduct on a new and insolent doctrine they call “peace through strength,” which repeats the past history of plundering, dispossession, conquest, extermination, occupation, slavery, and ethnic cleansing. It is the peace of the old colonial empires, the world wars, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fascism and Nazism, the Monroe Doctrine and its corollaries, and the design that must have motivated Hitler when he proposed to reconfigure the map of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. …

In recent weeks, as though they had not learned the lessons of history, there re-emerged in the United States as official policy the ghost of McCarthyism and the witch hunt. A strange Summit, to which Washington convoked without warning dozens of foreign ministers, was dedicated to the intention of launching the persecution of a phenomenon that no one had heard about. They called it “the resurgence of extreme leftist terrorism.” Previously, they had tried to coin the strange concept of “narco-terrorism,” which would have reminded of the bloody Latin American dictatorships and the Condor Plan that they imposed.

Subsequently, the State Department published an extensive report on Cuba, which was characterized by superficiality, lying, and inconsistency, as if it were written through the application of badly employed Artificial Intelligence, but with the intention of singling out Cuba as a danger for the United States. Besides the absurdity of supposing that our country could threaten the greatest nuclear military power of the planet, the report seeks to criminalize and repress genuine expressions of solidarity with Cuba, expressed in many sectors of U.S. society.

The U.S. government seeks to condemn and criminalize the sympathy of the Cuban Revolution for causes in support of justice and civil rights and against racism, Zionism, war, and oppression. It questions our right to defend ourselves against imperialist aggression. It attacks the solidary and humanist work to which we are committed in many parts of the world. It condemns the international effort of Cuba in support of the liberation of the people of Africa and against apartheid, and it identifies our country as a danger for its example, its resistance, its dignity, and its work of social justice.

……….
The U.S. government reinforces to the extreme its economic war and collective punishment against Cuba, applying to the maximum its energy siege and strangling our possibilities of commercial interaction with other countries, advancing in its determination to disconnect Cuba from the international economy.
……….

Even in these circumstances, our people enjoy ample and profound relations everywhere, which as a norm are friendly relations of cooperation and respect, even with countries and governments with which we have political differences.
There is no doubt that the majority of countries reject the economic blockade of the United States against Cuba. The overwhelming vote of 136 versus nine against the U.S. attempt to prevent debate on the theme in the UN General Assembly on July 7, even in the current climate of intimidation, is a sure indication of world opinion.

Whoever rises up for Cuba, rises up for all times, Martí would surely repeat in these circumstances. Silence, indifference, or defense of narrow and selfish interests places all humanity in danger. Any State could be next, if an ample international coordination does not stop the barbarity. If the citizens of the United States were to have access to true and sufficient information, they themselves would impede the catastrophe with which their government threatens the planet.

On January 1, 2024, the Leader of the Revolution, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, expressed: “The policy of permanent hostility and blockade of the government of the United States is the principal cause of the difficulties of our economy. Do not doubt this reality, even though the enemy invests millions of dollars and much effort to hide it.”

Our people understand with complete clarity that a macabre and well-designed plan is unfolding, which is oriented to cut, step by step, sources of financial income, access to markets and technology, and supplies essential for the economy and for the life of Cubans, including food and medicine. Added to these and other significant limitations, a total energy blockade has been imposed since January of this year, which impedes the importation of equipment and parts, including solar panels and technical supplies associated with the generation of electricity.

Our people also are aware that the threat of military aggression continues in effect. Even though no logically conceivable pretext could be put forth for such a criminal and irresponsible act, the aggressive appetite of the anti-Cuban sectors within the United States to not appear to have limits. They themselves celebrate as signs of the success of their policy the agony and suffering of a mother that loses her son for the lack of medical supplies. They are happy for each megawatt that is not generated in the country, for the hours of blackout that the people endure, for restrictions in the supply of water for significant segments of the population, for the garbage that cannot be collected, and for difficulties in public transportation.

The government of the United States knows very well our disposition to find solution to bilateral differences through dialogue, and it knows the patience with which we have accepted its proposal to converse on the basis of respect. All have observed our disposition to accede, in spite of lies and manipulations, to an offering of aid, which it curiously qualifies as humanitarian, for an amount that is equivalent to the economic and social impact of merely five days of the blockade, that is inferior to the aid of the World Food Program that it tried to impede; and in spite of the fact that the same government uselessly provokes pain and suffering in generating a humanitarian crisis in Cuba.
The real goal and true inclination of the government of the United States is not expressed through dialogue or diplomacy or through the offer of aid, but by means of coercion and the determination to provoke the greatest possible punishment of the Cuban people in order to obtain their surrender.

Cuba is not a threat to the United States, nor does it desire to be its adversary or its enemy. Our vocation is peace, as is seen in the relations that we enjoy with all the international community, and in the Proclamation of Peace of Latin America and the Caribbean, signed by the Heads of State and Government of the region in Havana.

Our only commitment is with the Cuban people. Our mandate is that which emanates directly from the full, unique, and absolute sovereignty of the Cuban people. We have the right and the duty to reject and confront an aggression that castigates and threatens, and we have the right and the supreme duty to defend ourselves, even with arms, if we are attacked militarily.

We continue aspiring to the eventual possibility of a respectful and constructive relation with our voracious neighbor to the North and to take steps that lead in that direction, always with absolute, total, and complete respect for the rights and sovereign prerogatives of each part, which is how the relations among States ought to be guided.

Many of our compatriots live in U.S. territory. We strive to strengthen ties with our compatriots and to offer them the greatest possibilities of interaction with the Homeland and fraternal ties with their families and friends. Many of the government measures adopted now and in recent years are oriented in that direction and are based on the conviction that Cubans residing outside Cuba, anywhere in the world, have an important role in the development of the nation, from wherever they are, and also if they return to the country. The new economic and social transformations in which we are immersed considerably expand these possibilities.

I wish to express our immense gratitude for the expressions of solidarity with the cause of Cuba from all continents, for the constant humanitarian aid, without conditions or political opportunism, of numerous governments, parliaments and parliamentarians, international organizations, fraternal organizations, social movements, political parties, businesspersons, friendship, solidarity and civil society associations, intellectuals and artists, personalities and academics, and individuals of diverse political signs and ideological commitments, but who coincide in the rejection of injustice and the crime committed against Cuba.

Barely four years had passed following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, when Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz said, in 1963: “It is true that we are still under the imperialist blockade. It is true that the imperialists are trying to tighten this blockade, and that we do not know how long we will have to resist this situation. And we will resist it! Because our revolutionary flag will never be folded! Because the high head of this nation will never bow! Because we will face the risks that are necessary for as long as necessary; we will face the sacrifices that are necessary, as long as necessary.”

We know that Independence, Revolution, Socialism and the very existence of our Nation and our Culture will depend on it.

In the year of his Centennial, it is necessary to understand, assimilate, act and repeat tirelessly that idea established by Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz that a better world is possible, a world without cruel blockades, a world that does not “kill men, women and children, young and old, like silent atomic bombs.” Fidel aspired and called for a struggle for a better world that will only be the result of revolutionary and progressive struggle. That vision feeds optimism, the certainty of victory and commits us to fight tirelessly, even in circumstances as hard and challenging as those we live in today.

Let us repeat with José Martí: “before giving up in the effort to make the Homeland free and prosperous, the South Sea will join the North Sea, and a snake will be born from an eagle’s egg.”
Socialism or Death!

Homeland or Death, we will overcome!

One of the most notable lines of Blade Runner 2049 is uttered by Freysa, who tells K that “dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do.” A more Kojévean line could hardly be spotted anywhere else in cinema.​

For Alexandre Kojéve, central to what makes a person is our capacity to subvert the Schopenhauerian will-to-life and stake our fragile existence for the sake of recognition. It is when we encounter the predicament where we would rather die fighting than continue as we are, that is when we become fully human.

This is what Kojéve calls anthropogenic desire:

For man to be truly human, for him to be essentially and really different from an animal, his human Desire must actually win out over his animal Desire. Now, all Desire is desire for a value. The supreme value for an animal is its animal life. All the Desires of an animal are in the final analysis a function of its desire to preserve its life. Human Desire, therefore, must win out over this desire for preservation. In other words, man’s humanity ‘comes to light’ only if he risks his (animal) life for the sake of his human Desire. Therefore, to desire the Desire of another is in the final analysis to desire that the value that I am or that I ‘represent’ be the value desired by the other: I want him to ‘recognize’ my value as his value, I want him to ‘recognize’ me as an autonomous value. In other words, all human, anthropogenic Desire – the Desire that generates Self-Consciousness, a human reality – is, finally a function of the desire for ‘recognition.’”[1]

One becomes fully human when they are willing to stake one’s life to fight for change. Not only, therefore, is dying for a cause one of the most human things we can do, as Freysa said, for Kojéve it is what constitutes the human qua human, what sets us apart from nature and our mere existence as biological entities. Perhaps person is a better term to employ for what Kojéve (and Blade Runner 2049) refers to as the human, leaving therefore “human” as a biological category that elevates itself to personhood when it stakes its life in such a form.[2] With such an adjustment, we can say that the human animal becomes fully a person, as Boris Groys puts it, when their desire for recognition “values the mode, the form of their life more than life itself.”[3]

The world of Blade Runner is premised on the work of slaves, the replicants. Niander Wallace, the owner of the Wallace Corporation, admits that all human societies have been sustained by a permanent underclass of slaves. Freysa, the Replicant, is a part of the Replicant Freedom Movement, for whom the fact that the replicant species (or, class) can replicate (the existence of Dr. Ana Stelline being proof of this) is a rallying cry for recognition and autonomy. Lt. Joshi, K’s boss, is clear about the catastrophic potential the spread of this information could have for their social order: “The world is built on a wall. That separates kind. Tell either side there’s no wall... you’ve bought a war. Or a slaughter.”

Humans thus are presented as a conservative force seeking to sustain a species (or class) fragmentation with humans at the top and replicants (alongside other digital entities) at the bottom as their slaves and servants. Thus, from a Kojévean standpoint, it makes perfect sense why Freysa says replicants are “more human than humans,” it is precisely because there is a replicant revolution on the horizon, that is, because the slave replicant class/species is staking its life for a cause, for freedom, for recognition of their dignity and personhood. As Christopher M. Innes wrote, “Freysa’s battle cry is not that different from Marx [and Engels’s] “Workers of the World, Unite!”[4]

Would this not make the replicants a form of non-human persons? The Replicant Freedom Movement clearly articulates the preference of death through struggle than the preservation of life through submission and enslavement. From a Kojévean standpoint, therefore, they are persons (or, how Kojéve and Blade Runner would put it, “human”).

But what about Joi, the general digital entity you could personalize to serve you, whose sole purpose is serving you, bringing you “joy?” Hence, the marketing tagline for the Joi models: “everything you want her to be!” It is easier to consider the replicants as persons, even if not of the same kind as humans. But could the same apply for K’s Joi?​

I think yes. Not only does she exhibit, as Chris Lay shows, an advanced degree of consciousness, self-consciousness, and sentiency, but in addition to this, she also dies for a cause.[5] When Joi agrees to stake her existence on the well-being of the emanator, she understands that such a risky operation under conditions of imminent persecution makes her previous potential for infinite life null. Her life is now as, if not even more, fragile than anyone else’s. A break of the emanator, a task which doesn’t take much effort, would mean her death. Joi invites this possibility as her chance of being “like a real girl.” She accepts a predicament of inhabiting the world with the background of death, to put it in Heidegger’s terms, as the “possibility of the impossibility of any existence at all.”[6] She throws herself, in other words, to live with the anxiety of an authentic being-toward-death.[7]

​In the end, Joi sacrifices herself to save K. She stakes her life for a cause, not just to save the man she loves, but to keep the horizon of their search for truth – their search to tear down the wall Lt. Joshi said their world was built on – alive. Joi, then, has taken the leap of preferring annihilation to an immortal will-to-life. In such sacrifice she precisely earns her personhood.

Originally published on Carlos' blog Philosophy in Crisis

Author
Dr. Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American Professor of Philosophy who received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He serves as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Party and as a Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist-Leninist think-tank in the United States. Dr. Garrido has authored a few books, including Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview (2022), The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism (2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), and the two forthcoming texts, Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Western Marxism (2026) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2026-7). Dr. Garrido has published over a dozen scholarly articles and over a hundred articles in popular settings across the U.S., Mexico, Cuba, Iran, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, Peru, Canada, etc. His writings have been translated into over a dozen languages. He also writes short form articles for his Substack, @philosophyincrisis, and does regular YouTube programs for the Midwestern Marx Institute channel. He is on Instagram @carlos.l.garrido

References

[1] Alexandre Kojéve, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (New York: Cornell University Press, 1980), 7.
[2] For Kojéve, in good Hegelian fashion, a form of recognition is also achieved through labor, although “to attain true recognition, the slaves/workers must also risk their lives – or, in other words, start a revolution.” Boris Groys, Alexandre Kojéve: An Intellectual Biography (New York: Verso, 2025), 17.
[3] Groys, Alexandre Kojéve: An Intellectual Biography, 34.
[4] Christopher M. Innes, “Replicants of California, Unite!” Blade Runner 2049 and Philosophy (Chicago: Open Court, 2019), 233.
[5] Chris Lay has a great argument for Joi’s autonomy as a person, not simply an artificial device set up to a priori submit to K’s will. For instance, consider the following argument from Lay, reflecting on what happens after K tells Joi, once he gets her the emanator, that “you don’t have to say that” when she tells him “I’m so happy when I’m with you”: “From this interaction, we can tease apart K’s instructions to Joi. By telling Joi that she doesn’t have to dote on him, he says to her that if she’s going to care for him, she should do it because she wants to and not because she’s programmed to cling to his every word. So, if Joi truly were “whatever K wants her to be,” she would either care for him independently of her programming, or, barring that, not at all. Since Joi continues to care deeply for K, it seems that she has either defied her programming and chosen to care for K on her own, or followed her programming and done what K asked—to reject her programming and, again, freely chosen to care for K. Either way, Joi’s affection for K seems authentic.” Chris Lay, “Is Joi a Person?” Blade Runner 2049 and Philosophy, 13.
[6] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 307.
[7] Heidegger, Being and Time, 310-311.