The rich and famous

By Yadira Escobar

From her blog YadiraEscobar.com

HIALEAH GARDENS – Miami is a city of rightists that owes much of its character to the bourgeoisie that fled from the revolutionary Cuba.

As time went on, people of humbler origins came from Cuba but they never could make their voices heard with the force of the newspapers, radio stations and television channels in the hands of the political right.

The exiled children of the proletariat did not organize into powerful unions with means of communication at their service, so the bourgeois ideal prevailed, which, of course, can be either progressive or reactionary, depending on factors that are foreign to that social class, such us not living in their homeland.

Personally, I think that the bourgeoisie, with all its values, can be very progressive and help the rest of its less-fortunate compatriots, so long as the nationalistic ideal and civic morality are maintained.

In fact, that social class is generally very hard-working (the low and middle bourgeoisie), thrifty, and helps a lot by creating jobs. But I think that, in Miami, “our bourgeoisie” in general has degenerated, acquiring the worst defects of that social class.

The political right has two major ideological trends that often clash with each other. One is the conservative trend, the other is the liberal.

The conservative side relies on tradition, religion and authority to justify its immobility regarding the subject of private property. The liberal side, in turn, seeks freedom on the basis of an absence of controls, so as to gain financial mobility and agility in the market.

The Cuban bourgeoisie-in-exile oscillates between these two trends, which are mutually contradictory, but maintains – as its true compass – its affection for the people of success and fortune (derived from the liberal side) who, as symbols to be imitated, constitute the best expression of their class.

That admiration for the successful individual is not bad, if it is balanced by appreciation for other, more conservative bourgeois values. But – when under pressure from the top bourgeoisie or, worse, international bankers and global foundations – a cult of triumph (no matter how achieved) is developed, the right wing’s degradation could sink it into total discredit.

In recent days, the more liberal wing of the political right in Miami hailed Yoani Sánchez for being a famous blogger who challenged the Cuban socialist regime.

I don’t think that if a humble Cuban blogger arrived in our city as a political refugee she would receive the same treatment. What happens is that, as days go by, the less-liberal groups and the more-rightwing organizations in the “historical exile” circles are betting on the Cuban blogger, who apparently is rich and famous and therefore acceptable as a successful figure within the competitive bourgeois world.

Although some insist on presenting the blogger as someone above ideology, it is increasingly evident that the far right is groveling at her feet, begging her to represent them.

There’s little I can say about her because I don’t know her. Her speeches don’t help me to understand her true thoughts (too much ideological incoherence), but I am sincere when I say that, when she wrote from Cuba in her blog (which, I stress, was never censored), she seemed to me to be part of civilian society. I never criticized her work.

Now I disapprove of her path, because I don’t consider it patriotic or authentic but rather in favor of the meddling of powerful forces in the world into and against our little island.

I insist again that the bourgeoisie that supports her, no matter what she says about the blockade, the U.S. Navy base in Guantánamo or the Cuban spies in American prisons, supports her, because it perceives that she qualifies as a bourgeois symbol of success.

In the eyes of that bourgeoisie, she must receive all political credits so she many lead the exile community toward success, as a social class.

I know that her success is fiction, because it was not voted upon, but the media and propaganda present it as electoral. So it’s not so surprising that they forgive her so many things, especially in the hope that she was chosen by the forces of interference to open the doors to foreign occupation.

After all, with the passing of time, that bourgeoisie has lost its nationalist devotion to sovereignty and places its hopes on the help of others.