Slow death of Cuban ‘socialism’

[Red Monroy]

I first wanted to post in an existing thread, as there are already several on Cuba's "reforms". But the generic discussion seems to have died away and the latest threads about it are from other organisations. So, I'll do the same then and post James Turley's article from the current issue of the Weekly Worker. In it he responds to the articles published by the IMT and the PSL in the US:


Slow death of Cuban ‘socialism’

The capitalist road is the only one open to an isolated Cuba, writes James Turley

It is a little over 50 years since the overthrow of the Batista regime in Cuba, by a coalition of the Cuban ‘official communist’ movement and the populist guerrillas led by Fidel Castro.

Along with the Soviet Union, Maoist China and Vietnam at the high point of the war against America, Cuba is one of the only Stalinist countries to carry serious cachet among revolutionaries abroad. You are more likely to see Che Guevara plastered across a T-shirt than Erich Honecker.

At the end of the day, however, socialism in one country is socialism in one country - however long it takes, it will only end in tears. This week Raul Castro, leading the island state in his ageing brother’s stead, announced a million redundancies in the public sector. This is part of an overall drive to privatise the economy; at present, 85% of Cuba’s population works for the state, which had previously nationalised everything down to barbers shops and grocery stores. These workers are being urged to become private owners of their enterprises, either on an individual or co-operative basis. That’s not all - wages are now to be linked to productivity even in the state sector.

At present, wage differentials are very low - as, for that matter, are wages. That is compensated for with a food rationing system and, of course, their world famous health service, which indeed puts life expectancy in Cuba on a (slightly) better footing than in the United States - and a much better footing than many individual US states, to say nothing of comparable nations in the third world.

Such wholesale nationalisation of everything is not a benchmark of socialism, however. Socialism is enabled by the extension of democratic planning through the commanding heights of the economy, under a radically democratic political regime. Under those circumstances - so Marxists wager - the mom-and-pop petty bourgeois enterprise will simply be unable to compete, and will quietly be absorbed into the mainstream economy.

In Cuba, that simply hasn’t come to pass - nor should we have expected it to. Its principle international backer in the first decades of the revolution was, of course, the Soviet Union. Denied its geographically ‘natural’ trading partner in the USA, the USSR bought up Cuba’s sugar crop in bulk; this, and other subsidies, kept the Cuban economy afloat. After the fall of the Soviet Bloc in 1989-91, Cuba was plunged into crisis.

Since then, the response of the Cuban state has been to begin edging down the Chinese road - to a mixed economy of state-owned and privately-owned enterprises. The first form this took was the extension of the tourist industry, around which has grown almost an entire economy of its own. The convertible peso, a second currency, was created in order to allow tourists to pay their way without using US dollars.

The amount of money sloshing around in the tourist districts may not look enormous to western eyes - but a $5 tip is a quarter of a week’s wages in Cuba; on top of that, luxury goods are sold almost exclusively in the convertible currency, and wages paid, for the most part, in the non-convertible national peso. Understandably, there has followed general under-utilisation of skilled labour, as engineers and doctors get work as busboys and waiters to obtain riches beyond the purview of their professions.

The large scale privatisation, then, has a serious objective basis - it should not be viewed in standard left-Stalinist terms, as the subjective betrayals of a section of the Cuban leadership (as the Maoists put it, ‘capitalist roaders’). The economic difficulties facing Cuba are real, and need to be dealt with somehow. Pushing onwards to full socialism is impossible in an isolated country - the capitalist road is the only one open to Raul and Fidel under present circumstances.

Indeed, Cuba’s main diplomatic allies in the region are the left-led capitalist regimes of Venezuela and so forth. Hugo Chavez offers discounted oil; in return, Cuba offers medical aid and its own exports. Links with China are also deepening. In this context, it is only natural that the Soviet model of ossified state capitalism should fall by the wayside.

Just where that leaves Cuba in its standing among the international left as an iconic ‘socialist’ state is hard to judge at the moment. The Morning Star confined itself to a standard news agency report, declining to provide any editorial comment. As for the Revolutionary Communist Group, Britain’s foremost apologists for Castroite ‘socialism’ , it has far been equally silent on the issue - though, of course, it is early days yet, Raul’s announcement of the redundancies having come only recently. The Party for Socialism and Liberation - an American group with similar politics - is also quiet, though it did manage to criticise Fidel for his endorsement of moronic conspiracy theories surrounding the shadowy Bilderberg group.[1]

The International Marxist Tendency’s Jorge Martin has produced a substantial and not uninteresting document, with much nitty-gritty detail on Cuba’s economic woe (collapsing nickel prices, soaring food prices and the rest). It cannot last, of course - if, for their own reasons, the IMT are not in hock to Castro, they are certainly a little starry-eyed when it comes to Venezuela. The way out for Cuba, it seems, is through the Chavista movement - despite the latter’s own left-nationalist limitations, which no more exist for comrade Martin than the gulags existed for 1930s soviet loyalists.[2]

The symbolic power of the Cuban revolution has rested on two main bases. Firstly, there was a certain form of internationalism on the part of the Cuban ‘official communists’ - Che Guevara’s famous attempts to lead further guerrilla wars were ill-conceived at best, but embodied the spirit of revolutionary sacrifice for a generation of young militants - crowned, in the end, with a martyr’s halo in Bolivia. Later, Cuban intervention in the Angolan civil war delivered a serious body-blow to the tottering apartheid regime in South Africa.

Secondly, in stark contrast to the almost universally hated state machines in the East European Stalinist regimes, Cuba’s revolution maintains a significant degree of popularity. This has less to do with the state-run economy than the specific history of Cuba itself. When Castro’s victorious forces reached Havana, they were greeted by an enormous general strike. The previous regime, headed by Fulgencio Batista, was widely hated; under his rule and that of decades of predecessors, Cuba had ceded most of the gains of its wars of independence, becoming effectively a US semi-colony, and an off-shore casino-cum-brothel for American tourists.

After Castro took power, the US immediately feared for the spread of ‘Communism’ to its own doorstep. Between the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion and the blockade, US intentions were perfectly clear to its own population. The continuing enforcement of the blockade leaves little room for doubt even now.

In short, in spite of running a bureaucratic regime comparable in structural terms with the German Democratic Republic, the Cuban ‘communists’ remain popular because they embody in a particular form a fierce nationalist suspicion of the US. Pro-US dissidents have never gotten any real traction in Cuba - certainly nothing like the mass support for Solidarnosc in Poland, for example. This popularity means that state repression - though real - has nothing like the level of barbarity perpetrated by the Stasi or the Khmer Rouge; there are simply not enough enemies to kill. On the flipside, carefully monitored forms of public participation in politics are unthreatening enough to be allowed.

How long will either of these bases last under new conditions? At this point, it is simply too early to tell. The extension of the private sector, though intended to solve problems to do with overwhelming state ownership, will certainly cause serious problems of its own. As wealth differentials open up, so will class struggles. Productivity will not necessarily improve - one only has to survey the wreckage of the former Soviet bloc to see the worst case scenario, although Cuba is still some years from such an outcome.

One thing is for sure - defending ‘socialist’ Cuba will become a demonstrably harder sell for the RCG, PSL and the like. These are groups - or descendants of groups - who were lured away from Trotskyism by the revolutionary excitement surrounding Cuba and national liberation movements. It does not come quite so naturally to them to defend every twist and turn of official policy, as the sleepy organs of the official communist parties did so dutifully. One awaits their impressions of Raul Castro’s proposals with bated breath.

As far as substantial revolutionary possibilities in Cuba go, it is clear that any successful revolution will be international, and must spread throughout the region and onwards to strategically important sections of the advanced capitalist world - especially Europe. This cannot be achieved by protracted guerrilla struggles. Che, Fidel and the rest only succeeded in Cuba thanks to the organised action of the Cuban working class in parallel with their struggle. As for the ‘Bolivarian socialism’ of Hugo Chavez, the warnings from history are ample. The most appropriate one here is Batista himself - who, like Chavez, began his political career as a left-leaning army officer, placing communists in his first cabinet.

We know how that turned out.

james.turley <at> weeklyworker.org.uk

Notes


pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14431&newsiv_ctrl=1015
marxist.com/where-is-cuba-going-capitalism-or-socialism.htm

[Chimurenga.]

Blah, He doesn't even try to refute the PSL's latest articles.


Also, comparing Hugo Chavez to Batista? :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

As for the ‘Bolivarian socialism’ of Hugo Chavez, the warnings from history are ample. The most appropriate one here is Batista himself - who, like Chavez, began his political career as a left-leaning army officer, placing communists in his first cabinet.

Oh lord. This is by far the most idiotic analysis ever.

[REDSOX]

Cheer up you miserable bastards:)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, I don't like the Chavez = Batista thing. Even if he had "managed democracy," I don't think Chavez would go in that direction.

[Imposter Marxist]

As soon I saw "Cuba's Stalinism" I stopped. Lol

[Barry Lyndon]

Yes, because the US imperialists tried to overthrow Batista in a coup de tat and.....oh, wait. They were supporting Batista. History sucks when it doesn't agree with your sectarian paradigms, I guess.

It represents the height of ultra-left arrogance and stupidity. Every political situation can be shaped into the same moralistic passion play, in which the evil 'Stalinist' oligarchs are duping and misleading the stupid naive little brown workers while the 'real revolutionaries' from Trotskyist and leftcom talking shops are waiting in the wings, preparing to make the REAL REVOLUTION!

[Q]

Yeah, I don't like the Chavez = Batista thing. Even if he had "managed democracy," I don't think Chavez would go in that direction.
Indeed, the Batista thing seems uncalled for. I guess Turley wants to warn against army officers, but Chavez is simply no Batista.


As soon I saw "Cuba's Stalinism" I stopped. Lol
Deep analysis there.

[Kiev Communard]

The author's claim of "universally hated state machines" in Soviet-style states is simply fallacious. While the Stalinist states (to which Khmer Rouge's National Primitivist dictatorship does not belong, contrary to the author) were repressive, they were not repressive to such a degree as this article tries to present them.

Besides, he criticizes Cuban policies but does not offer his own alternative to the situation. That's his weak point.

[Devrim]

As for the ‘Bolivarian socialism’ of Hugo Chavez, the warnings from history are ample. The most appropriate one here is Batista himself - who, like Chavez, began his political career as a left-leaning army officer, placing communists in his first cabinet. Oh lord. This is by far the most idiotic analysis ever.

Now I am not at all suggesting that Chavez will go along the same road as Batista, but it is true that when Batista came to power he was supported by the left including the Popular Socialist Party, which was the Cuban section, which prior to 1944 had been the Cuban Communist Part, and section of the Comintern, and was one of the which merged to become the current Communist Part of Cuba.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed, the Batista thing seems uncalled for. I guess Turley wants to warn against army officers, but Chavez is simply no Batista.

This is coming from an organization whose former "guru" said this about another army officer:


Julius Caesar in particular, because of his youthful identification with the popular cause, programme of land reform and stunning military successes in, and plunder of, Gaul and Egypt, was able to offer substantial gifts to a supportive, but not uncritical, citizen mass. Through their votes – and semi-autonomous street manifestation – Julius Caesar was able to skilfully outmanoeuvre and eventually bludgeon his aristocratic rivals into submission. The lowering presence of his legions helped too.

He got himself appointed dictator perpetuus, or life-long holder of emergency powers. A Bonapartist domination which by no stretch of the imagination equates to what Michael Parenti – an apologist for "official communism" - calls "a dictatorship of the proletarii," an instance of ruling autocratically against plutocracy on behalf of the citizenry's substantive interests. Such a description is akin to projecting back in time contemporary Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez myths.

[Crux]

Yes, because the US imperialists tried to overthrow Batista in a coup de tat and.....oh, wait. They were supporting Batista. History sucks when it doesn't agree with your sectarian paradigms, I guess.

It represents the height of ultra-left arrogance and stupidity. Every political situation can be shaped into the same moralistic passion play, in which the evil 'Stalinist' oligarchs are duping and misleading the stupid naive little brown workers while the 'real revolutionaries' from Trotskyist and leftcom talking shops are waiting in the wings, preparing to make the REAL REVOLUTION!
Doesn't take away the fact that Batista was supported by the Cuban Communist Party and the Soviet Union. I mean, speaking of stalinists. And you really ought to stop using derogatory words towards non-white worker's.

[Kassad]

This is the shittiest, most unscientific and anti-communist analysis I've read regarding Cuba in a long time. Nice job mentioning the PSL and not refuting a single word our articles said. Nevermind the fact that the recent articles posted from our party are written by members who visit Cuba constantly and based their analysis on what they've seen personally.

Fucking awful.

[Red Commissar]

If you're going to make a surface comparison of Chavez to some other figure, it can be made much better with two other historical figures in Latin America. Juan Velasco, though Velasco came to pour in a military coup. Juan Torres of Bolivia is also a better comparison to Chavez- like Chavez he had a military background and was later elected as a socialist, but his regime was overthrown by a military coup.

It's not really a good article to be honest though. Could have approached it a lot better.

[Rusty Shackleford]

What an unwarranted attack on so many groups at the same time.

for fucks sake, "there simply were not enough enemies to kill" what the fuck kind of 'communist' wrote this.

[Eddie Ford]

What an unwarranted attack on so many groups at the same time.

for fucks sake, "there simply were not enough enemies to kill" what the fuck kind of 'communist' wrote this.
What's your objection to that statement, No Vacancy? I thought the article was excellent.;)

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Urrrgh, this 'article' is complete garbage.

I must admit I am not well-researched on the topic of Cuba's current economic situation, but even I understand that any real communist would be offering real solutions to the Cuban government, respect, encouragement, and solidarity against American imperialism. They would NOT be offering sectarianism, nastiness, and defeatism.

Yes, Cuba has economic problems, but capitalism is not the answer, and never should be. Also, comparing Chavez to Batista is absolute and unadulterated reactionary bullshit, Batista was a fascist thug, military dictator, and puppet of the US, Chavez was elected, he had a background in the military but it's rather irrelevant I think. Chavez has nationalized some property, nationalizations which Batista would have never done, and nationalizations which when Castro did, invited assassinations, terror and eventually an armed invasion by America.

Venezuela shows that Cuba is not alone, it has friends, it has options. Chavez is a social reformer and anti-imperialist, to oppose him outright is ridiculous. It's a matter of the greater enemy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=835



Slander

The idea that Hugo Chavez is like Batista is nothing less than bizarre. US imperialism supported Batista, who didn’t nationalise things out of fear of CIA assassination attempts and US military action.

Sometimes there’s too much paranoia about army officers, especially Third World army officers. Chavez is merely following the footsteps of the Julius Caesar of people’s history (not gentlemen’s history), armed with a combinative programme derived from Proudhon’s cooperatives and communal power, Lassalle’s ‘state aid’ over economistic ‘self-help’ as a means of agitating for political action, and Bismarck’s social welfare (plus social conservatism on the video games front).

The recent failure of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela to obtain a two-thirds legislative majority points to one conclusion: the need for a multi-party system that is managed towards a deliberalised, radicalised, substantively populist and leftwing orientation.

I just hope this failure won’t hamper efforts to form a new international, something to which Batista never committed.

Jacob Richter

[Rusty Shackleford]

What's your objection to that statement, No Vacancy? I thought the article was excellent.;)
Because apparently all communists do is try to find and kill people. thats the kind of bullshit assumption it takes to make such an anti-communist statement.

[Magdalen]

For those of you who're interested, here's the RCG's Robert Clough's excellent response to Turley's article, which was published in the letters page of this week's Weekly Worker.


Chauvinists

James Turley (‘Slow death of Cuban “socialism”’ (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004105), September 23) may have missed our initial contribution on the changes in Cuba; it was posted on our website on September 22, the day before his article appeared. He will now be able to read that and a more extended analysis in the latest issue of Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!, which will be available by the time this letter is published, as will those readers who want to get a real understanding of the processes taking place in Cuba at the present time.

Although these articles specifically address the likes of Rory Carroll of The Guardian, they also deal with the points that Turley himself raises, since, in common with virtually all Trotskyists in Britain, these reactionary bourgeois journalists are amongst the sources he will have used to write his piece. He finds, if I recall rightly, Cuban sources to be tainted - a convenient bit of chauvinism to cover for the absence of original thought. And, anyway, will there be any real difference in the coverage of these changes between the Weekly Worker, Socialist Worker, The Socialist, Workers’ Liberty and Socialist Resistance? I think not; they will all drink at the poisoned well called Samuel Farber, where they do not use the likes of Carroll.

However, what I want to deal with are not so much the specifics about Cuba as the more general questions of socialism, imperialism and revolution. The first is Turley’s statement that we (the Revolutionary Communist Group) “were lured away from Trotskyism by the revolutionary excitement surrounding Cuba and national liberation movements.” No, we were lured away by the utterly reactionary positions that Trotskyists had in relation to the Irish liberation struggle, and then in relation to the anti-apartheid struggle, and then in relation to the Labour Party. We understood, through our political work and by our reading of Lenin, that the essence of building a revolutionary movement in this country is anti-imperialism and that there can be no question of building a socialist movement unless we oppose social imperialists all along the line (Imperialism and the split in socialism). It was a rediscovery of those of Lenin’s positions which the British Trotskyists reject: on imperialism; on the division of the world into oppressed and oppressor nations; on the right of nations of self-determination; on the material basis for a split in the working class in imperialist nations; on the different tasks facing the working class in oppressor and oppressed nations.

You see, when the chips are down, the Trotskyists - and I, of course, include the Weekly Worker in this category - line up with the imperialist Labour Party and perform some sickening intellectual contortions in order to do so. We saw this in the drivel written by Alex John with its puerile headline (‘Vote preference one for Abbott … and fuck warmongering ex-ministers’, September 9), where, like the SWP, he cites Lenin’s description of Labour as a bourgeois workers’ party and when, like the SWP, he, as a member of the CPGB, completely rejects Lenin’s position on the material basis of opportunism. Talk about illusions: the idea that there are socialists in the Labour Party, not just common or garden opportunists with a ready socialist phrase for the gullible Trotskyists; the belief that it has a working class base when, nearly 25 years ago, Whitty reported that 60% of its members had a degree or equivalent, and that before the Blair levy of the 1990s and the membership slump of the last 10 years; the notion that communists do not want to destroy the Labour Party - of course we do, just as Lenin wanted to destroy the Mensheviks. This article is just reactionary guff - but with a purpose because, of course, the Weekly Worker likes to keep in with ‘comrade’ John McDonnell. I hope that your readers appreciate the way in which the Weekly Worker fawns over this utterly backward nonentity and reserves its bile for revolutionaries who have changed history and who continue to do so. Does anyone seriously imagine that Chavez will turn out like Batista, as Turley suggests? Only a wretched died-in-the-wool reactionary British Trotskyist could even think of making the comparison.

The Weekly Worker (like the SWP, AWL, SPEW, etc) sets a very different standard for revolutionary movements in the oppressed nations from that they apply to themselves in imperialist Britain. Here it is okay to support a racist, imperialist anti-working class party led by war criminals in a general election - but, when it comes to the Bolivarian revolution, or the Cuban revolution, nothing is ever good enough for our Trotskyists. Because popular meetings in Cuba do not call for the overthrow of socialism, or decide they should give up because there isn’t socialism elsewhere, Turley has to dismiss this: “carefully monitored forms of public participation in politics are unthreatening enough to be allowed.” Rory Carroll would be proud of such a line. You can try to dignify this by calling it Trotskyism; I call it by its real name - chauvinism.

And we see it time and again: when revolutionaries rush on ahead in the oppressed nations, there are the great British Trotkysists who have built absolutely nothing saying ‘you cannot do this, the revolution has to be international, you have to wait for us’. And when the revolutionary movements don’t wait - well, there is no fury like a British Trotskyist scorned. Out comes permanent revolution, the impossibility of building socialism in one country, Stalinist this, petty bourgeois that. In reality, it means that British Trotskyists never support any revolutionary movement anywhere because they are such wretched doctrinaires.

The other point we realised when we ‘turned away’ from Trotskyism was that it had a material basis in the class relations of British imperialism. Its backward ideas express the interests of a petty bourgeois stratum whose privileged position depends on British imperialism’s parasitic relationship to the rest of the world. That is why they instinctively oppose revolutionary movements (with suitably radical phrases, of course) which might upset the relationship, declaring that they can’t possibly or indeed shouldn’t win, and endorse the Labour Party whose raison d’être is defending British imperialism.

Turning to the situation in Cuba: no, we don’t think it will be a “harder sell” since, as materialists, we understand the difficulties in moving towards socialism and can see the honesty and openness with which the Cuban communists deal with them. They have no blueprint; there is very little historical experience they can draw on. Instead they have to steadily build up the cultural level of the Cuban people to ensure that they can strengthen the democratic processes that they have in place; they have to seek allies internationally as a defence against US imperialism and its ruthless economic blockade; and they have to deal with the serious economic problems they face through a constant dialogue with the people. They cannot wait until the revolution spreads to “strategically important sections of the advanced capitalist world” because, if they have to wait for the Trotskyists, they will have to wait forever.

So, James Turley and the Weekly Worker, you can have your racist, imperialist, anti-working class Labour Party with all its mythical left workers, with its comrade John McDonnells and its Diane Abbotts, and you can have all your comrade Trotskyists. We will gladly take Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, the Cuban and Bolivarian revolutions, whatever difficulties they face, and know that we are on the side of the overwhelming majority of revolutionaries and communists in the world in keeping to this choice.

Robert Clough
email

[chegitz guevara]

Chavez isn't even an army officer. He was stripped of his commission when he went to prison and was elected as a civilian.

[Jim Profit]

Slow death? I knew Cuba's socialism was dying the moment the U.S. stopped acting all snobby about trading with them. That was already a tipoff, then when Videl cameout and appaloizedfor killing homosexuals. Well that was just the final nail in the coffin. Because that is nothing to appalogize about... lol!

Course, Cuba was never communist anyway. It was socialist, but people still owned private property, lots of it, so it wasn't communist. The government just told them how much they could own and where. Though it's not like Videl ever redistributed the wealth, so it wasn't really socialist, but good thing or else it would've been closer to nationalism. (nazis lololol) So Cuba was just authoritarian, and "small fascism". I guess thats why America didn't like them. Because they were failfags it. It laced all the real tennets of fascism like social darwnism, imperialism, and rewarding big corporations rather then punishing them as long as they serve the state's interest.

When you really get down to it, all politics are essentially the same. They only differ in how far they're willing to go, why, and for what. Politics is about priorities, no some objective different paradigm.

[Q]

For those of you who're interested, here's the RCG's Robert Clough's excellent response to Turley's article, which was published in the letters page of this week's Weekly Worker.

Excellent response? Really? While it has some fair points, I tought of it as one big trololololol rant. Putting the CPGB as a Trotskyist group and blaming all of the world miseries on Trotskyism doesn't come over to me as waging a serious debate. Sometimes I think the Weekly Worker is too free in the letters they publish, but then again people like Robert Clough only discredit themselves with such responses.

Well done RCG, well done.

[Magdalen]

Excellent response? Really? While it has some fair points, I tought of it as one big trololololol rant. Putting the CPGB as a Trotskyist group and blaming all of the world miseries on Trotskyism doesn't come over to me as waging a serious debate. Sometimes I think the Weekly Worker is too free in the letters they publish, but then again people like Robert Clough only discredit themselves with such responses.

Well done RCG, well done.

I think you've got to read 'Trotskyism' as meaning 'holding the traditional positions of the British Trotskyist left' as opposed to the ideas of Leon Trotsky per se. The Weekly Worker/CPGB certainly fits this model better than it fits that of the old CPGB - although both the Trotskyist Left and the old-fashioned Communist Party Left (the CPB and the NCP today) do share certain similarities in their record of apologism for the Labour Party.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Slow death? I knew Cuba's socialism was dying the moment the U.S. stopped acting all snobby about trading with them. That was already a tipoff, then when Videl cameout and appaloizedfor killing homosexuals. Well that was just the final nail in the coffin. Because that is nothing to appalogize about... lol!

Course, Cuba was never communist anyway. It was socialist, but people still owned private property, lots of it, so it wasn't communist. The government just told them how much they could own and where. Though it's not like Videl ever redistributed the wealth, so it wasn't really socialist, but good thing or else it would've been closer to nationalism. (nazis lololol) So Cuba was just authoritarian, and "small fascism". I guess thats why America didn't like them. Because they were failfags it. It laced all the real tennets of fascism like social darwnism, imperialism, and rewarding big corporations rather then punishing them as long as they serve the state's interest.

When you really get down to it, all politics are essentially the same. They only differ in how far they're willing to go, why, and for what. Politics is about priorities, no some objective different paradigm.


Cuba is socialist? really. eh, well, I guess since we, in the U.S have public schools, medicare, medicade, disablity, unemployment insurance,workmans comp,WIC,health insurance for children up to 21, if im wrong,government housing,energy assistance and free clinics, [there is a 2 month wait] so would you call the U.S socialist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Cuba is socialist? really. eh, well, I guess since we, in the U.S have public schools, medicare, medicade, disablity, unemployment insurance,workmans comp,WIC,health insurance for children up to 21, if im wrong,government housing,energy assistance and free clinics, [there is a 2 month wait] so would you call the U.S socialist?

Stop being a smart arse.

There are veritable differences between an economy that is 85% state owned, has workers' democracy in the form of CDRs, and one that has 60million people with no healthcare and over 1/4 of it's children living in poverty.

There is also a difference between a country which has historically tried to export Socialism, and whose foreign efforts in modern times extend to partnerships with ALBA countries to treat 1million+ people with serious eye conditions, and one whose foreign policy includes the destruction of the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and any other country that threatens it's imperialist hegemony.

Get real.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Stop being a smart arse.

There are veritable differences between an economy that is 85% state owned, has workers' democracy in the form of CDRs

State Control does not Equal Socialism. In the words of Comrade Lenin, "I am deeply convinced that the Soviets will make the independent activity of the masses a reality more quickly and effectively than will a parliamentary republic (I shall compare the two types of states in greater detail in another letter). They will more effectively, more practically and more correctly decide what steps can be taken towards socialism and how these steps should be taken. Control over a bank, the merging of all banks into one, is not yet socialism, but it is a step towards socialism. Today such steps are being taken in Germany by the Junkers and the bourgeoisie against the people. Tomorrow the Soviet will be able to take these steps more effectively for the benefit of the people if the whole state power is in its hands."

BTW, CDRs are far from 'workers democracy'...

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Stop being a smart arse.

There are veritable differences between an economy that is 85% state owned, has workers' democracy in the form of CDRs, and one that has 60million people with no healthcare and over 1/4 of it's children living in poverty.

There is also a difference between a country which has historically tried to export Socialism, and whose foreign efforts in modern times extend to partnerships with ALBA countries to treat 1million+ people with serious eye conditions, and one whose foreign policy includes the destruction of the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and any other country that threatens it's imperialist hegemony.

Get real.



Just answer some questions, who makes the decisions in Cuba, the people collectively or the bureaucracy? do the people have any say in the decisions that are made that effect them? and if the people do not like the policies that are being passed, are the bureaucrats subject to instant recall? Is socialism top down or bottom up? in Cuba, do appointed representatives from various communities and industries have a say in the policies?

The problem here is that revolutionaries are so friggin desperate to have a country to point to, to use as an example,and they've become so enamored with certain bureaurats, i.e Castro, Chavez etc that they have forgoten what Marxism is.IT'S WORKERS CONTROL, not bureaucratism.

[pranabjyoti]

Just answer some questions, who makes the decisions in Cuba, the people collectively or the bureaucracy? do the people have any say in the decisions that are made that effect them? and if the people do not like the policies that are being passed, are the bureaucrats subject to instant recall? Is socialism top down or bottom up? in Cuba, do appointed representatives from various communities and industries have a say in the policies?

The problem here is that revolutionaries are so friggin desperate to have a country to point to, to use as an example,and they've become so enamored with certain bureaurats, i.e Castro, Chavez etc that they have forgoten what Marxism is.IT'S WORKERS CONTROL, not bureaucratism.
Can you show any example collective decision of people in the state level anywhere in present world and if the present world is not upto the mark for you, then kindly try to create one and show us. At least, this isn't present even in many so-called democratic countries (perhaps happening in some kind of anarchist heaven).

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Can you show any example collective decision of people in the state level anywhere in present world and if the present world is not upto the mark for you, then kindly try to create one and show us. At least, this isn't present even in many so-called democratic countries (perhaps happening in some kind of anarchist heaven).


This is the point, there isn't. people are so quick to lable some bureaucrat Marxist as long as he makes life easier for the people and puts some industries under bureaucratic state control. Do you think the bureaucrats are sacrificing, doing without like the people?

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Can you show any example collective decision of people in the state level anywhere in present world and if the present world is not upto the mark for you, then kindly try to create one and show us. At least, this isn't present even in many so-called democratic countries (perhaps happening in some kind of anarchist heaven).

It's also this attitude that caused the CP to sell out in the 30's after FDR threw a bunch of social programs at the workers which led them, and the socialist groups to take their eyes off the prize. now if anyone or group would like a true voice in how society is organized,and criticizes Castro, and organizes against him, they are labled "anti revolutionary"Yeah, start the round-ups. it's fasinating how the once oppressed can turn into the oppresser.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just answer some questions, who makes the decisions in Cuba, the people collectively or the bureaucracy? do the people have any say in the decisions that are made that effect them? and if the people do not like the policies that are being passed, are the bureaucrats subject to instant recall? Is socialism top down or bottom up? in Cuba, do appointed representatives from various communities and industries have a say in the policies?

The problem here is that revolutionaries are so friggin desperate to have a country to point to, to use as an example,and they've become so enamored with certain bureaurats, i.e Castro, Chavez etc that they have forgoten what Marxism is.IT'S WORKERS CONTROL, not bureaucratism.

Cuba is not a perfect model of democracy, though it certainly has veritable elements. I refer you to the article below, 'American vs Cuban Democracy' by Chris Geiser:


Some people are dubious about the feasibility of a society based on cooperation instead of competition envisaged in my concept of an "80% Party." They point out that all governments based on cooperation became corrupt, dictatorial, inefficient, and alienated their citizens enough to bring about their downfall.

The reason given for the blockade of Cuba is to "restore democracy," but there are huge differences in U.S. and Cuban democracy.

Many forms of democracy have existed in the past, starting with the Greeks, and many forms still exist today. U.S. democracy has changed greatly from 1789, when slaves, women, landless men and indentured servants could not vote. As circumstances changed, we have amended the Constitution 27 times to meet the new needs.

Since 1789, certain rights have not changed: the rights to own land and companies, to hire and fire people and pay them less than the value they produce, are guaranteed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Administration, the army and the police. But our right to a job, a home, medical care, education beyond high school, and a living wage, are not guaranteed.

Cuba has reversed this. In Cuba you cannot buy land, start up private corporations, or hire others to work for you. You are guaranteed a job or unemployment pay, a home, free medical care, and education beyond high school. Even though Cuba is a Third World country with an annual per capita domestic product of about $1700 compared to our $22,000, it does what we cannot do because it distributes the wealth and income it has more rationally.

We have the right to get rich here, though few do. In Cuba, no one can become rich. The minimum wage is 100 pesos a month, the maximum 800. Cuba has set up economic, political, social and cultural structures which reward the individual for working for the common good by modest economic incentives, but more importantly, by the friendship and admiration of those with whom you work, the dignity of citizenship in a sovereign Cuba, a fair share of whatever Cuba produces, and the right to take part in making government and management decisions. Why have the "socialist societies" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe been overthrown by their own people? Because their leaders became corrupt, were dictatorial, and practiced nepotism leading to incompetence and mismanagement. They alienated people and denied them control over their government's actions.

Cuba has found a way, not without some difficulty, to have an honest and efficient government guaranteed by the close control people exercise over it. At the base of Cuba's democracy are the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR). They were formed by the Cuban people at President Castro's suggestion after counterrevolutionaries threw four bombs into a huge crowd during a 1960 speech.

Each square block elects its own CDR. I met with such a committee in 1990. All legislative changes which affect all Cubans must be submitted for review by the committees and they have three months to return their comments. One member of the CDR was the secretary who kept records of meetings; another was the treasurer who collected 25 centimos from each family every month for block activities; another person was in charge of security and arranged for two people to walk around the block between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. to help anyone in trouble and to prevent anyone from causing trouble; another young woman was the district CDR representative.

Another woman turned out to be the doctor for the block. The people in the block had built a two-story house for her with material supplied by the government. She had a medical history on everyone in the neighborhood, made house calls, and practiced preventative medicine; her income did not depend on people getting sick because she received a fixed salary paid by the government. A small, Afro-Cuban woman was the CDR chairperson. She coordinated the work of the Committee and had a Cuban flag in front of the house. Why? So the police could find her. They couldn't arrest anyone in the block without the Committee's permission. No Stalin could arise in Cuba.

And this is just the beginning of democracy in Cuba.

Cuba's three-stage electoral system
In 1976, the Committees in Defense of the Revolution were supplemented by setting up election districts -- about 500 voters in each -- to elect a delegate to the district People Power Assembly (PPA). The district PPA then elected a delegate to the provincial PPA, which in turn elected a delegate to the national PPA. In 1991, in order to involve the people more directly in government, the national PPA set up a commission to find the best way to do this. In 1992, a draft of the new electoral procedure was sent to all CDRs for their comments and millions of Cubans discussed the procedure. The result was a new three-stage electoral procedure.

The first stage, as before, was local elections within the 13,685 election districts to choose a district delegate. Anyone 16 or older could vote. No less than two nor more than eight candidates were to be nominated and the winner had to receive over 50 percent of the votes. Several hundred districts had to have a runoff election a week later because no one had received over 50 percent.

The second stage was the formation of district electoral commissions made up of representatives from different organizations (women's groups, labor, students, farmers, churches, sports, etc.) These representatives then arranged meetings in their factories, institutions and organizations to nominate individuals they thought would serve the common good in its provincial and national PPA. More than 1,600,000 people took part in these meetings. The district PPA had the right to nominate up to half of the candidates and the rest were chosen by the electoral commission from the names submitted for the provincial and national PPA.

A ballot was then prepared with no provision for a write-in candidate. Voters had three choices: 1) to deface their ballot or leave it blank; 2) to vote for one or some of the candidates, and; 3) to vote for the entire slate and thereby show the whole-hearted support for the Revolution. The candidates spent no money, nor did they campaign separately; their names and biographies were published and they all appeared at public meetings. There was no party slate.

The third stage of the new electoral procedure was a secret ballot held on February 24, 1993. The voter turnout was more than 99 percent. The poll watchers were high school students. Seven percent, about a half million voters, defaced or left their ballots blank, indicating that they opposed the Revolution. Another seven percent voted for less than the full slate, while 85 percent voted for the entire slate. The new 500-member national PPA has 115 women, 11 lawyers, two clergymen, and 83 percent had not held the office previously. District, provincial and national delegates receive no perks and have to live off the wages their factory or institution pays them.

The Cuban government does no have a separation of powers as we do. The national PPA has all powers -- legislative, administrative and judicial. It sets the general policy and elects an executive council to carry it out. The council sets up commissions for various functions, such as a judicial commission to oversee all of the courts. (In Cuba, you have to study to be a judge just like becoming an engineer.)

An illustration of how the national PPA involves the people in decision-making may be seen by how it tackled three of Cuba's problems. While Cuba was trading with the Soviet Union, a large quantity of consumer goods were imported. When this stopped, wages and pensions were not reduced, resulting in Cubans accumulating 11 billion pesos, with little to buy, and an 11 billion peso national debt. A second problem exists because the U.S. dollar is now an official currency. Some people have access to dollars and some do not. Some, such as taxi drivers and hotel workers, receive dollars from tips; other people receive dollars from relatives in the United States; and others, such as artists and farmers, can sell their goods on the market. And then there is the so-called "black market," another source of dollars. Those who have access to dollars can buy goods in the dollar stores that are unavailable to the majority. It has been estimated that 30 percent of the population has access to dollars while the rest do not. And a third problem is the irritation felt by those who do not have access to dollars and cannot use the tourist facilities.

The national PPA asked all factories and institutions to hold conventions to discuss what to do about these problems and any others that needed to be discussed. The response was that 80,000 conventions sent in their suggestions.

People Power Assembly in action
The first result of analyzing the suggestions was a decree-law for the confiscation of personal funds obtained illegally. That was followed by fees for cultural and sports events and for meals previously free. Another law provided for the taxation of funds received from abroad and from tourists. These measures reduced the 11 billion peso national debt by 10 percent in the first four months.

To provide tourist facilities, the government Cubanacan Tourist Agency set aside half of its rooms to be paid for with pesos. Since not everyone could be accommodated, rooms will be provided for newlyweds and those individuals chosen by their colleagues for having worked the hardest for the common good.

Is this democracy? Certainly it is the opposite of what we have. Do these procedures serve the interests of the majority? They certainly do. They involve Cubans in the decision-making process to an extent not conceived of in the United States. This is what makes it possible for Cuba to survive the very severe hardships caused by the collapse of the former socialist countries and the tightened U.S. blockade.

Does our democracy protect the interests of the majority? It protects the interests of the top 20 percent. Since 1980 the real family income has declined rapidly for the bottom 80 percent. Our democracy, which spent close to a half billion dollars to fill offices in the last election, gives us a government bought by those with money. True, we have majority rule and allow third parties. But the result has been a government which always served to generate and protect a growing disparity in income. Nevertheless, until recently most people expected their children to live a better life than they did. Since 1980 the real income of the 80 percent has been dropping while the real income of the 20 percent has been increasing.

There is a world of difference between majority rule that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rest and majority rule that serves the interests of the majority. Most of the world's 368 billionaires, whose wealth equals that of the poorest 2,800,000,000 , live where majority rule works on their behalf; if their rule is threatened, they replace it with dictatorship. Let us beware. U.S. citizens are free to travel to Cuba, but if you spend money there, the sentence can be a $250,000 fine and 10 years in the slammer, a heavy price to learn what is going on there. Hundreds of U.S. citizens have openly defied the law without being prosecuted. The authorities may realize it might be difficult to get a jury to convict. After all, the United Nations General Assembly has voted to condemn the U.S. blockade.

I am not advocating a blind adoption of Cuban procedures for the U.S. We will have to find our own way. The organizing of the "80% Party" could be a peaceful way of changing to a democratic rule that serves the interests of the majority. The Oklahoma City bombing and formation of armed militias should be a warning to us that we have little time to lose, for some Americans whose living standards are falling are thinking of more violent means to bring about change. We must bring them into the 80% Party.

Cuba's first priority is growing food. Until 1990, Cuba had imported much of its food in exchange for sugar. With the collapse of the socialist countries in Europe and the effects of the U.S. blockade, it can no longer do so. The investment in educating agricultural scientists and setting up agricultural institutes in the 1980s is paying off now. They are replacing chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer and crop rotation, pesticides with biological controls, outdated technology with state-of-the-art technology appropriate to the season, area and crop. They are also introducing biological control of plant diseases and are producing micorrhizae to aid plant root uptake of mineral nutrients, the first country known to do so. Cuba is showing the way we and the rest of the world will have to grow our food without polluting our soil, air and water. We will have to find our own way to rule in the interest of the majority if we are to eliminate from our nation increasing poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, crime, drugs, unemployment, racial and ethnic discrimination. And we don't have much time to do it. Scientists tell us that if we continue on the present course, the cost will be tremendous. The future of our planet is at stake.

[Author Carl Geiser was born on Dec. 10, 1910, in Orrville, Ohio. After the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union, Carl was in the first student group to visit that country, a trip sponsored by the National Student Federation of America in the summer of 1932. Also in 1932, he was elected the student delegate to the Latin American Congress against War and Fascism held in Montevideo, Uruguay, in March 1933. On April 13, 1937, Carl left for Spain because "for the first time...a people had actually taken up arms to prevent fascism from coming to power." He was captured on April 1, 1938, when 30,000 Italian troops hit 1,000 U.S. troops and he spent one year as a prisoner of war. His book, Prisoners of the good Fight, was published by Lawrence Hill in 1985 on the 50th anniversary of the uprising. ]


As an aside, I don't think there are many people out there who regard Hugo Chavez as a genuine Marxist.

Back to Cuba, you can look back at over 50 years of a tiny island, that for 20 years has not had the USSR to protect it, that has managed to keep its revolution going, has not had mass executions, does have a strong semblance of personal freedom - in the political and social sense - and also does have a veritable form of grassroots democracy, even if this does not translate ideally into national level democracy in the way that we might want it to. However, whatever our wanton desires are, I defy any tiny Socialist nation, with the world's most powerful nation at its doorstep, to do any different.

I don't want to apologise for Cuba's mistakes. It's persecution of homosexuals and the debatable treatment of blacks was horrific, as Fidel Castro has recently alluded to with regards to homosexuals. It has made economic mistakes, most notably following the likes of Kruschev and Brezhnev into economic stagnation, which probably resulted in the excessive hardship of the 'special period'. The dual currency is also an economically illiterate measure, in my opinion. These mistakes and wrongs, and the peculiar factors involved in the Cuban revolution mean that any future revolution should not look backwards to Cuba as a model of what Socialist revolution should be, I think we can agree on that. However, the conclusion must be that Cuba has done more to advance the Socialist cause, particularly in Latin America, than it has to damage it. In addition, it has shown that it is possible to reject the advances of the US without pushing the population into poverty or absolute repression. In fact, it is almost miraculous the social benefits wrought by the revolution, which is something that should, ultimately, be saluted.

[RED DAVE]

People are complaining about the Chavez/Batista thing without addressing the main point of the OP: creeping capitalism is coming to Cuba. How about a discussion of that instead of sectarian raving. Or, if you believe it isn't happening, how about discussing that? The Clough thing is useless.

RED DAVE

[Q]

People are complaining about the Chavez/Batista thing without addressing the main point of the OP: creeping capitalism is coming to Cuba. How about a discussion of that instead of sectarian raving. Or, if you believe it isn't happening, how about discussing that? The Clough thing is useless.

RED DAVE

Thank you for putting the thread on track again. It is indeed interesting that not one of the critics responds to the main point of the article.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You didn't, either. ;)

But there are two choices for Cuba here: Tito or Deng. Which route will Cuba go?

[Q]

You didn't, either. ;)
Because I agree with it.


But there are two choices for Cuba here: Tito or Deng. Which route will Cuba go?

I gathered that Raul was a fan of the "Chinese road".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's surprising that Raul is of such persuasion, given that he was in fact one of the original handful of revolutionaries that survived up in the Sierra Maestra mountains. You'd not think he'd go along with Fidel's ideas of Socialism for so long.

A bureaucrat if ever there was one.:mad:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I gathered that Raul was a fan of the "Chinese road".

That was a rhetorical question, one which unfortunately wasn't addressed in the article.

Paul Cockshott's intended critique of Jack Conrad at least mentions Yugoslavia.

BTW, you didn't respond to the main point, but you did respond re. Chavez. ;)

[RED DAVE]

But there are two choices for Cuba here: Tito or Deng. Which route will Cuba go?What difference does it make? Neither one involves socialism, workers control of production, and both end up in the same place: capitalism.

RED DAVE

[MellowViper]

Chavez and the socialist trend in South America is the best hope for a fifth international. To compare him to Batista is just unproductive and untrue.

[Sosa]

On September 13, a statement by Cuba’s trade union (CTC) published in Granma announced a whole series of sweeping changes in the country’s economy. These measures are the result of the serious economic crisis affecting Cuba, which has been hit hard by the recession in world capitalism. This underlines Cuba’s dependence on the world market and the impossibility of “building socialism in one country”.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_Aaron_Escobar-Cuba_Libre.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/Aaron_Escobar-Cuba_Libre.jpg)Photo by Aaron Escobar.The most striking of the measures announced in the CTC statement was the cutting of 500,000 jobs in the state sector by March 2011, as part of a process of reducing one million jobs. Around 85% of Cuba’s workers, 5 million, are employed in the state sector, so this would mean firing 20% of these 10% within the next 6 months.
The statement further explained that these workers will have to move to the non-state sector, through an increase in licenses for self-employment and family run businesses, some workers taking over their small business units and running them through cooperatives, the leasing of state owned premises and businesses to be run by the workers themselves, etc.
Job losses

In the past, workers who were made redundant would receive their full basic wage until they were allocated to another job. But now these 100% subsidies will be limited to one month, after which the workers will receive a further benefit of 60% of their basic wage which will be prolonged in time according to the length of their previous employment: those who have worked up to 19 years for a month, or two months for those having worked between 20 and 25 years, three months for those accumulating 26 to 30 years, and for a maximum of five months for those having worked more than 30 years.
Moreover, those remaining in state sector jobs will have their pay linked to productivity, a measure which had been already announced by Raul Castro but which not all companies had implemented because of the deep economic crisis that the Cuban economy has gone through.
The statement also repeated points made previously by Raul Castro to the effect that “oversized social spending” has to be reduced, and that “excessive subsidies” and “unwarranted gratuities” had to be eliminated. This seems to announce a complete overhaul of the welfare state system, moving from universal benefits to means tested benefits. It will probably mean the elimination of the rationing card which gives all Cubans access to a basic basket of heavily subsidised goods, mainly food. The expansion of self-employed licenses in reality will mean the legalisation of a de facto situation in which many Cubans have been forced to make ends meet by getting involved in the black market.
Self-employment

For the first time, small private businesses will be allowed to hire waged labour, and they will have to pay social security contributions for workers they employ. Those who will take advantage of the expanded licenses for self-employment and family run businesses will have to pay into a new tax system, including 25% social security contributions and taxes on profits of between 40% (for restaurants) to 20% for those renting out rooms.
The state hopes to increase tax revenue on the self-employed and small business by 400%. There are already in Cuba 170,000 cuenta propistas self-employed people working legally and there is probably a similar amount in the black market. This is down from a peak of 210,000 during the opening up of the economy in the early 1990s.
Money wages in Cuba are relatively low, but Cubans receive heavily subsidised or free housing, transportation, education, healthcare and foodstuffs through the rationing card. The problem is that the social wage no longer allows Cubans to live and they have to do a large percentage of their basic shopping in convertible pesos (CUC) which are exchanged at 1 for every 24 Cuban pesos in which they receive their wages.
The CUC shops are run by the state and operate on the basis of high mark-ups as a way for the state to recover hard currency which Cubans obtain through remittances from abroad and their legal, semi-legal and illegal dealings with tourists.
Other measures announced recently include the extension of the duration of leases of land to foreign investors, from 50 to 99 years. This measure was explained as providing "better security and guarantees to the foreign investors” particularly in the tourist industry. There is already talk of Canadian companies building luxury resorts complete with 18-hole golf courses on the island.
Cuba at the mercy of the world market

The measures announced, and others that have already been announced or that are in the pipeline, threaten to increase inequality, develop the private accumulation of capital, seriously undermine the planned economy and start a very powerful process towards the restoration of capitalism. All of these measures are the result of the serious economic crisis that Cuba has been facing in the last two years.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_scatuchio-hotel_nacional_havana.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/scatuchio-hotel_nacional_havana.jpg)Hotel Nacional in Havana. Photo by Scatuchio.As we explained in an earlier article (Cuba 50 years later - part two (http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later-part-two.htm)), the Cuban economy is extremely dependent on the world market and as a result, suffers heavily from the movements of the capitalist economy. First, the price of oil and food increased massively in 2007-08. Cuba imports about 80% of all the food it consumes, a total of US$1,500 million, mainly from the US. Then, the price of nickel collapsed from a peak of US$24 per pound down to US$7 per pound in early 2010. As a result of these factors, the terms of trade fell by 38% in 2008 alone.
The world recession also affected negatively the important tourist industry and the remittances of Cubans abroad which amount to US$1,100 million. To all these negative factors we have to include the devastation caused by three hurricanes in 2008 which caused loses worth nearly US$10,000 million.
Cuba is now heavily dependent on the export of professional services (mainly doctors to Venezuela) for its income in hard currency which then allows it to purchase goods on the world market. This export of medical services is worth US$6,000 million a year, three times the income generated by tourism.
The combination of all these factors led to a record trade deficit of US$11,700 million in 2008 (up 70% from 2007) and a current account balance of payments deficit of over US$1,500 million in the same year (in comparison with a US$500 million surplus in 2007). Cuba is not a member of any international financial institution and in the context of the worldwide credit crunch and the US blockade it proved impossible to obtain any additional lines of credit. This led Cuba to default on its payments to foreign creditors by mid 2008 (Cuba’s foreign debt was US$17,820 million in 2007, or around 45% of GDP).
After having grown steadily in 2003-07, reaching peaks of 11.2% and 12.1% in 2005 and 2006, the rate of growth sharply contracted to 4.1% in 2008 and 1.4% in 2009. In 2008 the state had the biggest fiscal deficit of the decade, 6.7% of GDP, and was forced to implement a programme of adjustment, including a massive reduction in imports (including food).
All these figures paint a picture of a Cuban economy which has a very weak base and is heavily dependent on the world market. To summarise, you could say that Cuba exports raw materials (nickel), agricultural products (sugar), but mainly professional services (doctors), and receives income from tourism and the remittances. With the hard currency it earns, it has to import almost everything, from food to manufactured goods, not to speak of capital goods.
This really shows, not in a theoretical way, but in the cold language of economic facts, the impossibility of building socialism in one country. This was not possible in the Soviet Union, which after all, was a country spreading over a whole continent and with massive natural resources. It is even less possible in a small island 90 miles from the most powerful imperialist power on earth.
Collapse of Stalinism

What is truly amazing is the fact that the Cuban revolution has managed to resist after the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union, on which it was completely dependent from an economic point of view (this is explained in more detail in Cuba 50 years later - part two (http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later-part-two.htm)). This is a testimony to the deep roots the Cuban revolution still has within the population. The so-called Special Period showed the determination of a whole people not to allow themselves to be enslaved again.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_stttijn-crowd_on_26_July.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/stttijn-crowd_on_26_July.jpg)Crowd celebrating the Cuban Revolution on 26 July. Photo by stttijn.So what attitude should we take to these proposals? It is true that, in itself, the opening of small businesses is not a negative measure. A planned economy does not need to nationalise everything, down to the last barber shop. This was always a Stalinist caricature. In Cuba the nationalisation of all small and medium enterprises took place as part of the “Revolutionary Offensive” in 1968, when 58,000 small businesses, mainly in the cities, were expropriated. Ice cream vendors, barber shops, shoe repair shops, etc, all were nationalised.
This was a completely unnecessary step, which only resulted in the creation of a further layer of bureaucracy to oversee and manage these really small productive units. In the transition towards socialism, it is inevitable that elements of capitalism will continue to exist alongside the elements of a socialist planned economy. That includes a certain number of small businesses, shops and small peasant plots, etc.
In itself, that should pose no threat to socialism, as long as the key points of the economy remain in the hands of the state, and the state and industry is in the hands of the working class. On that condition, and only on that condition, a small private sector could and should be allowed, as long as the state maintains firm control over the commanding heights of the economy.
In the 1920s the Russian revolution was forced to make concessions to private production (mainly in agriculture) and offer concessions to foreign capital, through the New Economic Policy. Lenin was even prepared to offer to lease parts of Siberia to foreign capitalists. Given the extreme poverty of the young Soviet state, the Bolsheviks had no means of developing the colossal mineral potential of that huge region.
In exchange for investment and foreign technology, both of which the Revolution lacked, Lenin was prepared to allow foreign businessmen to open factories and mines on Soviet territory, employ workers and make profits, on condition that they respected Soviet labour laws and paid taxes. But the prior condition for making such concessions was that the working class, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, maintained control of the state. In reality, these offers were rejected because the imperialists were determined to overthrow the Soviet state, not trade with it.
However, such historical analogies have definite limits and can be misleading. The truth is always concrete. It is not a question of repeating general truths about the transitional economy but of analysing concrete facts and trends. We have to ask ourselves the basic question: in the given historical context, what will the concrete results of these policies be for Cuba?
The first problem is that Cuba has an extremely weak economic basis. The second is that it is only a few miles from the most powerful capitalist economy in the world. The third is that, as a result of years of bureaucratic mismanagement, the state owned enterprises are in a very bad state. Last but by no means least, the workers have no sense of controlling the industries where they work, and therefore no interest in questions such as productivity, efficiency and so on. There is a general sense of malaise and discontent that can lead to a mood of alienation that can pose the most serious danger of all to the future of the Revolution.
Everybody agrees that the present situation cannot continue, that “something must change” and “something must be done”. The question of questions is: what is to be done?
Will these measures work?

The notion that the problems of the Cuban economy can be solved by promoting the private sector is a most serious error, and one that can pose serious dangers for the future of the Revolution. This is shown by experience. There have already been some test cases for the privatisation of small businesses, including the leasing out of barber shops and one taxi firm.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_monkey_cat-tobacco_plantation.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/monkey_cat-tobacco_plantation.jpg)A tobacco plantation. Photo by Monkey Cat.The results have been uneven. Some barbers find that they cannot generate enough profits to afford the lease and tax they have to pay to the state, others are thriving. Taxi drivers in one firm where they are now forced to lease their vehicles from the company have complained that they have to work extremely long hours just to cover what they have to pay for the use of the taxi.
It is not clear how these businesses will be able to get credit or how efficiently they will be able to get supplies, etc. The experience of peasant cooperatives and private agricultural producers has not been very successful, as they have had to deal with an extremely bureaucratised state system for purchasing their produce, delays in payments, problems in accessing fertilisers and seeds, etc.
An official document refers to many of these newly created businesses collapsing within one year. This does not allow much room for optimism! Unlike the reforms in the 1990s this time private businesses will be allowed to employ waged labour. This will create a sizeable legal layer of private small capitalists: we are talking about 250,000 new licences on top of the existing 170,000. It is inevitable that this layer will develop its own interests and outlook.
A gulf will open up between the private and public sectors. In a situation where the state is not able to produce good quality industrial and manufactured goods, the private sector will tend to grow at the expense of the state sector. In other words, the capitalist elements will grow and the socialist elements will retreat. The idea that the state can keep the capitalist elements under control is utopian. To the degree that the private sector becomes stronger, the market elements will assert themselves.
Two contradictory and mutually exclusive tendencies will exist side by side. Sooner or later one of them must prevail. Which one? That sector will ultimately prevail which attracts most productive investment, and on that basis, succeeds in achieving a higher level of labour productivity and greater efficiency. The present moves to relax the restrictions on foreign investments will mean a rapid increase in the flow of foreign capital to the private sector, starting with tourism and spreading to other key sectors.
The battle between the two trends will not be won by ideological speeches and exhortations but by capital and productivity. Here the crushing weight of the capitalist world economy will prove decisive. The main threat to the planned economy does not come from a few taxi drivers or barber shops but from the penetration of the world market in Cuba and from those elements in the bureaucracy who, privately, favour the market economy as opposed to a socialist planned economy.
Let us speak frankly: There is a strong current amongst Cuban economists, which is advocating these measures because they are in favour of abandoning the planned economy altogether, introducing market mechanisms at all levels and opening up the country to foreign investment in all sectors. That is, they are in favour of capitalism.
These people are basically proposing a “Chinese way”, although, because of the strong criticism which has developed in Cuba against China amongst left wing intellectuals, they prefer to talk of the “Vietnamese model”. The change of terminology is irrelevant. A rose with any other name will smell as sweet. And capitalism with any other name will smell as bad.
Regardless of how they want to describe their model, the proposals are clear. “The state should no longer plan the economy but regulate it”, “manufacturing and agriculture should be opened to foreign investment”, etc. No doubt the intentions of those proposing these measures are of the best. But the way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the restoration of capitalism would be Hell for the people of Cuba, even if some do not yet recognise the fact.
Long ago, Fidel Castro rejected the “Chinese model” because it was just another name for the restoration of capitalism. But even if we were to consider this option, it would immediately become clear that it cannot apply to Cuba. The concrete conditions are completely different. Cuba is a small island with a small population and few resources. China is a vast territory with over a billion inhabitants, many resources and a powerful industrial base.
The huge Chinese peasantry has provided China’s capitalist enterprises with a vast reserve of cheap labour, which has constantly supplied the factories of Guandong with workers who work under virtual slave conditions for very low wages. The only thing that a Cuban variant would share is the last: low wages.
A capitalist Cuba would resemble neither China nor Vietnam, but rather El Salvador or Nicaragua after the victory of the counter-revolution. It would soon revert to a similar situation that existed before 1959 – one of misery, degradation and semi-colonial dependence. And irrespective of the intentions of those responsible, the measures which have already started to be implemented, will unleash a powerful movement towards the restoration of capitalism, which would destroy all the conquests of the revolution. It is the entry to a very slippery slope, and once it starts it will be difficult to stop.
Corruption and bureaucracy

But, some will say, we cannot continue as before! No, we cannot. But before we prescribe the medicine it is first necessary to have an accurate diagnosis of the disease. If we think that the problem is one that is inherent in the nationalisation of the means of production, then we must be in favour of privatisation and market economics. But we do not accept that this is the case.
The superiority of a nationalised planned economy was demonstrated by the colossal successes of the USSR in the past. These successes were undermined by the bureaucratic distortions that flowed from Stalinism and the corruption, swindling and mismanagement that are the inevitable consequence of a bureaucratic regime. Over a long period these things cancelled out the gains of the planned economy and undermined it. That is what led to the collapse of the USSR, not any inherent defect of central planning.
All those in Cuba who consider themselves communists and are worried as they see the gains of the revolution being endangered should study the lessons of the degeneration of the Russian revolution. It was the parasitic existence of the bureaucracy, itself a consequence of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country, which finally led to the restoration of capitalism with the catastrophic social collapse which accompanied it. The bureaucratic planning of the economy led to wastage, mismanagement and corruption. Finally the bureaucracy decided to become themselves the owners of the means of production.
The problem of corruption and bureaucracy in Cuba has already been denounced by Fidel Castro himself, in an important speech to university students in 2005. More recently the matter was taken up in a sharp way by Esteban Morales, honorary director of the Centre for US Studies at the University of Havana. In an article published on the website of the National Union of Writers and Artists (UNEAC), he clearly identified the main counter-revolutionary threat in Cuba today:
“We can have no doubt that the counter-revolution, little by little, is taking positions at certain levels of the State and Government. Without a doubt, it is becoming evident that there are people in positions of government and state who are girding themselves financially for when the Revolution falls, and others may have everything almost ready to transfer state-owned assets to private hands, as happened in the old USSR.”
He explained how the problem with the black market and corruption is not so much that there are people outside the main shopping centres offering products which are not found in the shelves of the shops, but rather those who are supplying them. In a further article, Morales explains how:
“The real corrupt people are not so much those who sell powdered milk, not even those who sell durable goods outside the very doors of the shopping centres, but those who from their positions in the government and the state, control and open the doors of the warehouses.”
Morales explains how corruption at all levels of the bureaucracy is in fact more dangerous than the so-called dissidents, which have no roots or support amongst the population, since:
“the same people, which dissidents have no impact upon right now, if they are affected by a mood of corruption, mistrust in the leadership of the country, if they witness immorality in the handling of their resources (because the resources belong to the people, and that should not be just a discourse), amidst a situation of economic crisis, which has not been overcome, will become demoralised and will weaken their resistance in the political struggle.”
Shortly after publishing his original article, entitled “Corruption: The true counter-revolution?” Morales was expelled from the Communist Party, despite protests from the members of his local branch, and his article was removed from the UNEAC website.
As he himself explains, Esteban Morales is a convinced communist with more than 50 years of struggle behind him. He then wrote a further article in which he denounced these methods since they have a demoralising effect on revolutionaries and communists. He insisted on linking the problem of corruption to the question of bureaucracy and made an appeal to the rank and file members of the party to wage a campaign against both.
He argued that the rank and file organisations of the party should not limit their actions and discussions to their local area, but take on the problems as a whole. The current situation, he said:
“prevents the rank and file organisations of the party from projecting their criticisms to the tops, which would be very important in terms of control of the activity of the higher bodies by the rank and file”. He continued by pointing out that “the most important part of the Party is its membership, not its leading bodies at any level. Such deformation was paid for dearly in the USSR”.
Clearly, Morales, is addressing one of the central aspects of the problems facing the Cuban revolution. When Raul Castro took over, he opened up a widespread national debate about the future of the revolution. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people, participated in the debate and contributed their ideas on how to improve the revolution. This was a debate that generated genuine enthusiasm. However, there was no real mechanism through which the people who participated could decide the outcome of this debate. Thousands of proposals were made, sent up, but nobody heard about them anymore. In reality it was not so much a genuine process of decision making, but rather a consultation which is very different.
The lack of genuine workers’ democracy, in which ordinary working people participate directly in managing the state and the economy, is one of the main threats to the revolution. It breeds demoralisation, scepticism, cynicism and generally undermines the revolutionary morale of the people. If it is combined with a situation in which the basic needs are not met, the purchasing power of wages decreases and everybody is aware of corruption and theft going on at the top of the state, then it becomes a real counter-revolutionary danger of the first order.
Another example of this is the delay of the VI Congress of the Communist Party which was supposed to have taken place last year, after an already long delay of 12 years since the V Congress in 1997. There are many amongst the members of the party who share the concerns of Esteban Morales. They fear that sections of the bureaucracy will lead the restoration of capitalism as happened in the USSR. There are many indications of this ferment to the left within Cuba.
What way forward?

It is clear that the status quo cannot be maintained indefinitely, but are the measures being introduced a way forward, or a step back? One can say that, under unfavourable conditions, the Revolution must sometimes be prepared to take a step back. And it is customary to refer to Lenin and the NEP in this context. As a general proposition, it is undoubtedly correct that sometimes it is necessary to retreat. But a general who retreats must be careful not to turn a retreat into a rout. And what is completely unacceptable is to confuse a tactical retreat with outright surrender.
The Bolsheviks were never under any delusion that it was possible to build socialism in backward Russia. Lenin pointed out many times that in order to consolidate the gains of the Revolution and advance to socialism, the victory of the socialist revolution in one or more advanced European country was necessary. That would have been possible if it were not for the cowardice and betrayal of the leaders of the European Social Democracy. But once the Russian Revolution was isolated in conditions of frightful backwardness, a retreat was inevitable.
The measures defended by Lenin were clearly explained as a temporary setback, because of the delay of the world revolution, not a way forward. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Trotsky, continued to stress the need for international revolution to come to the aid of Soviet Russia and fought against the creeping bureaucratisation of the state institutions and to preserve workers’ democracy. All their hopes were based on the perspectives of the international socialist revolution.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_alittlefishy-morales_fidel_y_chavez.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/alittlefishy-morales_fidel_y_chavez.jpg)Photo by alittlefishy.It is not an accident that Lenin and Trotsky paid such a lot of attention to the building of the Third (Communist) International. A narrow nationalist attitude was entirely foreign to their outlook. In the same way, Che Guevara embodied the internationalist spirit of the Cuban Revolution. Che understood that, in the last analysis, the only way to save the Cuban Revolution was to spread the revolution to Latin America, a cause for which he was prepared to sacrifice his life.
The objective conditions for the victory of the socialist revolution in Latin America are a thousand times more advanced today than in 1967. The Venezuelan Revolution, together with Cuba, has provided a rallying point for the revolution in Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries. The initiative taken by President Chavez to launch the Fifth International, dedicated to the overthrow of imperialism and capitalism, should receive the most enthusiastic support of the Cuban revolutionaries. This is the hope for the future!
In our opinion, the only real way forward for the Cuban revolution is revolutionary internationalism and workers’ democracy. The fate of the Cuban revolution is intimately linked to the fate of the Venezuelan revolution and the Latin American revolution in the first instance, and to the world revolution more generally.
It is not a question of “exporting our model”, but of giving active support to the revolutionary forces which are fighting against imperialism and capitalism in Latin America and beyond. Instead of making concessions to capitalist tendencies, the Cuban revolution should be arguing clearly for the expropriation of the oligarchy, the capitalists and imperialism, as the only way forward in Venezuela, in Bolivia, etc. This is precisely the lesson that can be drawn from the living experience of the Cuban revolution itself. Only the expropriation of imperialism and the Cuban capitalists allowed the revolution to advance after 1959.
But an internationalist policy will not solve the needs of the Cuban people here and now! Of course, not! We are not utopians. Neither do we confuse strategy with tactics. It is necessary to combine a revolutionary internationalist policy with concrete measures to solve the economic problems in Cuba. The question is: how is this to be achieved? In our opinion, the measures proposed will not provide a lasting solution. They may temporarily succeed in eliminating or alleviating certain shortages and blockages, but only at the cost of causing new and insoluble contradictions in the medium and long term.
It may be that a section of Cuban society may welcome the proposed reforms, on the assumption that “something is being done”. But when the full effects are felt, that mood will change. The only real way to improve labour productivity is to make the workers feel that they are the ones in charge, that is, by introducing the widest measures of workers’ democracy into industry, society and the state.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_Library_of_Congress-Fidel_Castro_in_Washington_1959.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/cuba/Library_of_Congress-Fidel_Castro_in_Washington_1959.jpg)Fidel Castro in 1959. Photo from Library of Congress.The Cuban people have shown repeatedly that they are prepared to make sacrifices to defend the Revolution. But it is essential that the sacrifices should be the same for everybody. Down with privilege! We must return to the simple rules of Soviet democracy that Lenin put forward in State and Revolution, not for communism or socialism but for the day after the Revolution: that all officials be elected and subject to the right of recall, that no official should have a wage higher than that of a skilled worker, over a period of time the rotation of all positions (if everyone is a bureaucrat, no one is a bureaucrat), no standing army but the arming of the people.
Che Guevara insisted on the importance of the moral element in socialist production. That is obviously true but it can only be guaranteed in a regime of workers’ control, when every worker feels that he or she is responsible for taking the decisions that affect production and every aspect of life. However, given the serious problems that exist, some element of material incentives will be necessary.
The basic principle, at this stage, will remain: from each according to his ability, to each according to the work performed. This implies the existence of wage differentials, as was also in the case in Russia immediately after the Revolution. But there should be a ceiling on differentials, which should tend to reduce in the future, to the degree that production increases and with it, the wealth and wellbeing of society.
But the biggest incentive is clearly when the workers feel that the country, the economy and the state belongs to them, and that can only be achieved if it is the workers themselves who take all decisions and all elected officials are accountable to them. Only on this basis can the socialist base of the Cuban Revolution be defended and the capitalist counterrevolution defeated.
What is the alternative?

When the leaders of the Communist Party in China originally began their programme of reforms, they had no idea that they were preparing the way for capitalist restoration. But the introduction of some market measures (in the name of efficiency) has, over a long period of time, led to the restoration of capitalism, with a massive increase in inequality, the destruction of the social welfare system, etc.
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/thumbnails/9666_1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev-Party-Congress.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/history/1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev-Party-Congress.jpg)Lenin in 1919Those who have benefited from this process were not the workers and peasants but the bureaucrats. It is no surprise therefore that sections of the bureaucracy in Cuba are looking to China as a model. Some people might be impressed by the growth in GDP in China, overlooking the massive social contradictions which have accumulated. In any case, the application of the “Chinese way” in Cuba, would not even lead to economic growth, but rather to the rapid and catastrophic collapse of the planned economy. Foreign multinationals, from Spain, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and others, which are already operating in Cuba, are looking at this process and already positioning themselves. What are they after? Raw materials, cheap labour and the favourable climate of the island, that is, the re-colonisation of Cuba.
Important sections of the US ruling class are already questioning whether the blockade is the most intelligent policy in order to undermine the Cuban revolution, or whether they are missing opportunities for investment to other countries’ multinationals. The restoration of capitalism in Cuba would throw the island back to the 1930s, dominated by foreign capital, and a playground for tourists from advanced capitalist countries. But this is not a foregone conclusion.
Within Cuba there are many who are rightly concerned about the current situation but who do not want a solution along market lines. If a clear alternative based on revolutionary internationalism and workers’ democracy is presented, this could rally thousands of honest communists, veterans, intellectuals, youth and workers, who are not prepared to let the revolution be destroyed either by imperialism or by inside forces. In order to go forward, first we need to go back to the programme of Lenin!
Jorge Martin

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree with 99.9% of this article, but what does the author mean by workers control? Does he mean to say that Cuba should instead adopt the Venezuelan model?

The author I believe is from the Hands of Venezuela and th International Marxist Tendency.

He is a good analyst. It seem that Cuba is going backwards when it should be imitating the worker run management enterprises in Venezuela.

It has the power to do it! The only thing holding it down is bureaucrats who want to profit from a Chinese model!

This is Cuba's chance since it now has trading partners in Latin America.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So many people will be fucked if the rationing card and other such welfare provisions go. I just can't see how the middle and poorer Cuban workers will survive, tbh. It'll probably drive black market sales - a la izquierda, as they say over there.

I don't have too much of a problem with moving jobs from under the nose of the state, though they should be more effectively redistributed than simply telling people to expand their paladares (family-run home restaurants) and start cutting peoples' hair. Really, the Cubans should look to their agricultural sector, where I imagine more progress could be made because, quite frankly, their methods are shit. If they invested in new technologies and gave more autonomy to the agricultural sector (not in terms of private ownership/foreign capital, but in terms of genuine worker ownership), then that could stimulate food production, up the wages of farm workers and lead to an organic disappearance of ration cards and welfare dependance. As it is, the forced disappearance of ration cards and welfare dependance will be a disaster for Socialism in Cuba.

I'm so disappointed that it is Raul Castro, of all people, who is pushing Cuba further away from Socialism. I don't imagine that Fidel is fully in possession of the strong mental abilities that he once possessed, but he too must be disappointed by the domestic happenings in Cuba right now. There is another path out of the economic crisis that is affecting Cuba, it's called Socialism. I hope that Cuba doesn't abandon that path.

[Kiev Communard]

So many people will be fucked if the rationing card and other such welfare provisions go. I just can't see how the middle and poorer Cuban workers will survive, tbh. It'll probably drive black market sales - a la izquierda, as they say over there.

I don't have too much of a problem with moving jobs from under the nose of the state, though they should be more effectively redistributed than simply telling people to expand their paladares (family-run home restaurants) and start cutting peoples' hair. Really, the Cubans should look to their agricultural sector, where I imagine more progress could be made because, quite frankly, their methods are shit. If they invested in new technologies and gave more autonomy to the agricultural sector (not in terms of private ownership/foreign capital, but in terms of genuine worker ownership), then that could stimulate food production, up the wages of farm workers and lead to an organic disappearance of ration cards and welfare dependance. As it is, the forced disappearance of ration cards and welfare dependance will be a disaster for Socialism in Cuba.

I'm so disappointed that it is Raul Castro, of all people, who is pushing Cuba further away from Socialism. I don't imagine that Fidel is fully in possession of the strong mental abilities that he once possessed, but he too must be disappointed by the domestic happenings in Cuba right now. There is another path out of the economic crisis that is affecting Cuba, it's called Socialism. I hope that Cuba doesn't abandon that path.

Just looking at abject poverty that most Caribbean capitalist states find themselves into, one has to wonder what Cuban leaders are thinking - of course, if one only ignores the fact that Castroite nationalism has completely exhausted all of its previously progressive potential, and the radically new, socialist internationalist system is needed.