If Castro's 26th of July Movement failed, would Cuba be another Haiti today?

[☭World Views]

Would the local people still be the shoe-shine boys, cab drivers, food service, and laundry people subservient to the wealthy foreigners?

Would the USA still have a grip on Cuba's economy?

[red cat]

Well it actually does. Cuba has always been a semi-colony under one form of imperialism or the other. After the collapse of the Soviet state-capitalist bloc the USA does have a grip on the economy of such countries to some degree.

[Random Precision]

Would the local people still be the shoe-shine boys, cab drivers, food service, and laundry people subservient to the wealthy foreigners?

Tourism has always been the most lucrative industry in Cuba outside of possibly sugar. So, this never really ended, and was actually ramped up during the "special period". Foreign tourism, even the kind undertaken for liaisons with prostitutes, has been on the rise beginning in the nineties and through the present day. The current market-oriented reforms will probably encourage it more.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Would the local people still be the shoe-shine boys, cab drivers, food service, and laundry people subservient to the wealthy foreigners?

Would the USA still have a grip on Cuba's economy?

Yep. Pretty much.

[Raúl Duke]

Yes, the U.S. would probably have still a grip on Cuba's economy.

Cuba might have turn out more like the Dominican Republic (maybe a bit "better")

[Revy]

what about the Dominican Republic of the Trujillo-era. now that was one fucked up regime. we're talking the Hitler of the Caribbean, and he was in power at the same time too. He ordered what can only be called a genocide against Haitians. upwards of 30,000 were murdered.

[Yehuda Stern]

Not necessarily. If there had been no revolution, then Cuba would remain a puppet of American imperialism. However, if instead of the the 26th of July movement a genuine working class movement taken power, Cuba would become a real workers state, which of course would be a very favorable outcome. Instead, it became another China or Yugoslavia - which is better than the Batista regime, but still a defeat for the working class.

[willdw79]

Not necessarily. If there had been no revolution, then Cuba would remain a puppet of American imperialism. However, if instead of the the 26th of July movement a genuine working class movement taken power, Cuba would become a real workers state, which of course would be a very favorable outcome. Instead, it became another China or Yugoslavia - which is better than the Batista regime, but still a defeat for the working class.
I don't think that the working class was defeated in Cuba. I believe that their revolution did not proceed in the way that I (with hindsight) think that it could have, but that is not a defeat, they won.

I believe the same of several other revolutions. However, without these revolutions, capitalism would have progressed unfettered which I believe is the only way the working class can be defeated.

[Yehuda Stern]

Not necessarily. The working class is also defeated when it faces a situation in which it can take power but is unable to because its leadership is not revolutionary. It's true that the Cuban masses won certain democratic gains due to their revolution, but these had to be forced on the Stalinists by their pressure, which shows that indeed the way for the workers to advance is by struggling against Stalinism and not for its preservation.

[willdw79]

Not necessarily. The working class is also defeated when it faces a situation in which it can take power but is unable to because its leadership is not revolutionary. It's true that the Cuban masses won certain democratic gains due to their revolution, but these had to be forced on the Stalinists by their pressure, which shows that indeed the way for the workers to advance is by struggling against Stalinism and not for its preservation.
You have used the word Stalinist so much to criticize complex movements. It is almost like Bush's use of the word terrorism. Please, could you define what you mean by Stalinist?

[Radical]

You have used the word Stalinist so much to criticize complex movements. It is almost like Bush's use of the word terrorism. Please, could you define what you mean by Stalinist?

Ignore him. He's one of the common pacifist revisionists pissed off because Trotsky never made it.

[Random Precision]

^ Radical, if you've got nothing to say about the thread topic, then don't post.

[PRC-UTE]

For a better discussion on Stalinism and Cuba, see this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalinismi-t36881/index.html?t=36881

From the above link on Cuba being "Stalinist":


That is, of course, debated. I would strongly argue that it's a very different regime. Certainly it has a different origin - the pro-Moscow PSP was bypassed by a new revolutionary leadership.

It's possible, of course, to argue that the revoutionary government degenerated at some point due to the adverse conditions and Soviet influence. But there's really no shortage of threads debating the nature of the Cuban regime and its actions on this board!

Here, lemme just point out you're giving a lot of credit to Stalinism in this case. (As with any label that's applied to the Cuban revolution.)

To draw the logical conclusion: apparently Stalinism, rather than being "counterrevolutionary through and through", is capable of:

Keeping bureaucratic privilege at relatively low levels

Successfully defying Washington from 90 miles away for 45 years.

Maintaining the enthusiastic support of much of the population.

Relying on a relatively low level of repression considering the situation

Organizing some significant forms of mass participation in decision-making

Relying on mass mobilization to meet every important challenge - and being able to do so

Strengthening the worker-peasant alliance while following a policy of gradual, voluntary collectivization

Telling the truth fairly consistently

Economically, placing a uniquely high priority on the social needs of working people

And most anamolous of all:

Revolutionary internationalism. Putting opportunities to aid revolutionary struggles ahead of opportunities to seek "peaceful coexistence" with Washington - the biggest opportunity in the late 70s was scuttled by the Angolan events. The Cuban regime hasn't stood to gain anything material from its internationalist foreign policy, and at times even endangered its relationship with the USSR for its sake..

I'd be curious what explanation anyone could give for why a bureaucratic caste would want to do all those things, let alone be able to do so.

***
On the MIA definition - I think it's pretty decent, like I said. I do think there is a certain overemphasis on the "theories" - like the "two-stage" rationalization for support to Third World capitalist classes.

The "theories" changed with the shifting needs of the caste. Sometimes very abruptly - that kind of zigzag was the inspiration for Orwell writing in 1984, "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." And then it's at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, and always has been.

On the other hand, it is important to recognize those ideas when you see 'em; they are very widespread on "the left" worldwide due precisely to their promotion by Moscow and Beijing. All kinds of leftists hold some variant of those ideas, partly 'cause of their inability to shake their early political training.

And the "two stage" approach fits well with social-democracy as well, so it continues to operate as orphaned Stalinist parties drift towards social democracy.

***

I'm surprised to see YTMX say "Severian draws up a erudite, lucid account of the phenomenon". I'd thought he considered the Stalinist regimes to be merely another form of capitalism...which implies a very different analysis and expectations of their behavior. It also tends to imply a longer list of countries considered to be in the same "state capitalist" category as the USSR. Egypt for example, where most industry was taken over by the state in Nasser's time, as part of a bourgeios nationalist development strategy.

[Yehuda Stern]

Please, could you define what you mean by Stalinist?

By Stalinism I refer to either the bureaucratic counter-revolutionary state capitalist regimes claiming to be socialist that came to power in the USSR in the late 1930s, in Eastern Europe after WWII, and in other countries in different times, as well as the organizations and individuals supporting such regimes. The word can also be used to refer to those who reject some of those regimes but still support the notion of "socialism in one country."


He's one of the common pacifist revisionists pissed off because Trotsky never made it.

Pacifist? Are you running out of other big words to use? Because I don't see where I said anything pacifist. At any rate, Trotsky was one of those who "made" the only successful workers revolution in history, so I have nothing to be "pissed off" about.

[☭World Views]

Also, is it safe to say that the USA-led embargo, USA overt operation and USA's covert terrorism in Cuba has had at least some effect on what the working class in Cuba could have gained?


I think it has had an impact, does anyone disagree?

[Black Sheep]

Not necessarily. If there had been no revolution, then Cuba would remain a puppet of American imperialism. However, if instead of the the 26th of July movement a genuine working class movement taken power, Cuba would become a real workers state, which of course would be a very favorable outcome. Instead, it became another China or Yugoslavia - which is better than the Batista regime, but still a defeat for the working class.

Along with the guerillas in Sierra Maestra, weren't there also underground organizations and workers' demonstrations against Batista and supporting Fidel and the April 26th movement?

[Yehuda Stern]

There was the general strike that basically led to the revolution's victory, but that only shows that under capitalism, it is impossible defeat the bourgeois state without the activity of the working class. The fact remains that the leadership of the movement was petty-bourgeois, and the workers never came to power in Cuba.