Cuba Good or Bad?

[Paradox]

I know we've argued on this before, but here is another leftist critque of Cuba:

http://worldsocialism.com/wsm-pages/cuba.html

What are your opinions and replies to this piece?

[bolshevik butcher]

I've seen several well written leftist criticisms of Cuba, ad I've gotta admit they seem to have a point, while Fiudel and co might have redistributed the wealth reasnobly well, they seem ot have forgottena bout freedom of speech adn equal rights.

[Severian]

Eh, what the heck, this kind of thing has been popping up in other threads, why not go over it?


anarchist superstar Noam Chomsky warmly supports Cuba's defiance of the US, staying stoically silent on Cuba's internal regime, save that it is a matter for Cubans themselves.

Factually not the case; Chomsky has signed at least one letter criticizing Cuba's execution of hijackers and jailing of U.S.-financed "dissidents". (Hm, the article was written in 2003...might not be the writer's fault.)

"simple nationalist movement" not really, they had a well-developed revolutionary-democratic program, including taking the lands of Cuban plantation owners. "dreams of national autarky" I'm not so sure they ever had those. Sounds like a careless assumption.

"The US has never been able to forgive the expropriation of its millionaires by Castro's party," that's false. European capitalists have been compensated for the lack of their property, the U.S. could have come to a similar agreement....for that matter it hasn't blockaded everyone who's nationalized U.S. property.

What's really unforgiveable is the example of the Cuban revolution -which encourages others to do likewise - and its efforts to help others trying to make revolutions. That threatens much larger blocks of capital than what was lost in Cuba.

"None of this has abolished the commodity nature of production, nor the wages system. A fact starkly illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Cuba's export markets as well as the convenient supply of oil for industrial purposes"

I'm curious what other system of economic organization, other than "national autarky", could have experienced the loss of its major trading partner, on top of a economic blockade from the previous major trading partner, without problems. I doubt any other system could have fared as well. If Cuba is similar to the USSR and Eastern European countries, as the article claims, it must be hard for them how it survived at all...it doesn't even attempt to do so.

"the continued existence of the wages system" - it would completely utopian to think it could be abolished under current circumstances.

Then we get into the standard human-rights propaganda we could get off the State Department's webpage; that includes the complaints about "independent" trade unions which in reality are not so independent of imperialist capital or even the U.S. government.

The extent of workers' democracy within the party, unions, and other mass organizations is simply not examined at all except for the bland proclamation that the Communist Party is heavily involved. From the suppression of the fairly insignificant and narrowly-supported organizations which are financed by Washington, it is assumed that the Cuban working class is likewise suppressed.

Anybody who's visited Cuban factories and attended workers' meetings can tell you this isn't the case.

"International companies that invest in Cuba are compelled to hire their workers via agencies. "

A complaint made by these companies, to be sure; if they could hire directly, that would be a step towards capitalism.

"These agencies pocket 95 percent of the dollar value of the wages. State officials maintain that this is to maintain Cuban equality, and not to direct the dollars into state hands. "

False dichotomy, probably coming from the writer and not Cuban officials: directing the dollar into state hands, where it can be used to maintain social services and subsidize other parts of the economy, is the best way to maintain Cuban equality.

"This despite the obvious stratification of Cuban society that has emerged."

To be consistent with the last sentence, the article should be complaining the Cuban state doesn't take enough...workers in tourism, not bureaucrats in the government ministries, are still the richest people in Cuba.

"They excuse its actions as a necessary defence against US aggression, and will it to survive against the greater power, even at the expense of its workers' lives and liberties. And they can point to its impressive record on health care, education and education (much better than in much of the rest of Latin America: including a healthy 76 year life expectancy)."

Wait, "at the expense of its workers' lives"...."76 year life expectancy". Self-contradiction anyone?

"Cuba does indeed show what could be possible, even with meagre resources to meet the needs of human beings, and how artificial the deprivation across much of the rest of the world is. But the difference in treatment stems largely from an autarkic nation's need to maintain a functioning workforce versus the surplus population of the mono-export countries of much of the rest of South America."

Wait, I thought they "abandoned dreams of national autarky by becoming a sugar plantation for the USSR rather than the US. " Cuba has, until recently, remained pretty mono-export, sugar; now a small part of its population, working in tourism, earns disproportionate income. Much of its population probably could be written off as "surplus" with little loss of economic productivity...if Cuba didn't have a system based on social solidarity.

"Socialists do not consider that the best way to assist the workers of Cuba is to support the régime that dragoons them in siege warfare with the US, but that the spread of the world socialist revolution is the only way to rescue them from the unpalatable set of choices facing them. "

And what is the Cuban regime doing to perpeuate "siege warfare with the US" exactly? Trying to spread the world socialist revolution. Does the nameless author imagine that any country can work to do so without being besieged by the US? Or is he/she just mindlessly blaming the victim?

"To do that, we need to free socialism from the taint of the undemocratic methods applied in Cuba and stand clearly for the political freedoms of association and speech for the working class the world over, so as better to spread the ideas and consciousness required for the building of a truly stateless classless world co-operative commonwealth."

Sure, go ahead, stand clearly for political freedom all you want. I don't see how accepting the standard one-sided view of the state of democracy in Cuba helps "free socialism from the taint" however. Which, above all, comes from a view of what socialism has meant in practice, not from what socialists say.

The truth is that Cuba does not greatly resemble the USSR; accurately explaining the situation there can greatly contribute to showing the falseness of claims about supposedly inevitable horror following the overthrow of capitalism.

[NyChe21]

Well there is the problem with most of the revolutions of the twentieth century, each ruling communist party attempted to create a culture of revolution after the takeover of the ruling class. It is difficult to re-socialize people into a new definition of 'freedom' and the embrace of equality. Restructuring society is not easy, especially when it comes under attack from outside forces *cough couch 'U.S.!!!' cough cough*. The changes that force a revolution must be firmly implanted in the culture before a revolution comes to fruition. The cultural and societal situation that Che Guevara continued to look for in the world did not really exist outside the Sierra Maestra. The only reason why Castros propaganda works is because of his useful portrait of the Western powers as enemies. Providing Cuba with an enemy to spite was the worst thing to do from the American standpoint, they have alienated and marginalized the Cuban people and forced them to rely on Fidel, not overthrow him. Because the U.S. does not care about he Cuban people, the demogogue of Fidel and his control over the media easily allows him to unite Cuba against the U.S. These are the real effects of the embargo, it starves Cuba and expects them to overthrow a dictator????? American rational again at its worst.

[kellyk]

Cuba was going in the right direction, but the US strained their economy, and it has failed.

[RagsToRevolution]

I suppose I will do line-by-line analysis.


Leftist fantasies exposed. The scene is typical: the dog-end of a trade union branch meeting; members are tired after discussing complex pay and discipline issues; tired from listening to the hyper-activists glorying in the sound of their own voices; desperate to escape. Item 9 on the agenda of the hour-long meeting is expenses for a delegate to the Cuba Solidarity Campaign meeting. Exhausted hands fly up to approve the monies, without debate, voting as much for escape as for sanction.

Hypothetical situations do not belong in criticism such as this, as this goes beyond than seriously looking at a situation, but not providing any facts, instead framing the entire topic into a certain mindset. It is simple propaganda, as our brains focus on images. Because they say this, founded or not, we are thinking of this, and this image stays with us and changes our perspective on the rest of the article.


Cuba has become a cause celebre amongst many on the left. For example, Michael Albert of Z-Magazine in the USA had to give a rearguard defence of his criticisms of Cuba's decision to murder a number of hijackers (his critics themselves being activists and opponents of state-murder in the US); anarchist superstar Noam Chomsky warmly supports Cuba's defiance of the US, staying stoically silent on Cuba's internal regime, save that it is a matter for Cubans themselves.

While on he issue of execution, I may not fully agree with Castro, but hijacking, especially in Cuba's situation, is very much a national security issue. There were three Cubans involved in this incident, all were proven guilty and were executed. I do not condone the rather extreme measures the Cuban law system took, Cubans and their legislature may chose to change that.

As far as Noam Chomsky is involved, but I agree that Cuba's internal regime IS a matter for the Cubans. If indeed it is a reactionary, totalitarian government, it is the responsibility of the Cuban working class to change it. This is not to say I am not an internationalist, I will support the Cuban's revolt, but unfortunately, I do not have the means, nor the ability to start it. Further, I do not believe Cuba has the material conditions necessary for socialism.


In European literature, Utopia was always supposed to be an imaginary far-flung Island in uncharted seas like the Caribbean; now, it seems, it is a very real island in perfectly well-charted waters for a good majority of the left - even if those are waters that have been well sailed by the USSR and its sundry fellow travellers. This misty eyed respect for Cuba would not be so worrying were it confined to the dying ranks of Tankie Stalinists; however, its tendrils reach well beyond them. Like Chomsky, many take an anti-American reflex and root for the underdog versus the hyperpower: excusing the repressive parts of Castro's regime as mistakes, or excesses of siege warfare.

Again, rhetoric that is meant to frame an image in our mind and cloud the lack of facts in this article. What is important to note is that Cuba is far from "Stalinism" (if that can even be considered an ideology) and is rather unique when compared to Soviet bureacracy. I wouldn't compare them.


This is a siege that has been going on for a very long time. Castro's guerrillas emerged from the hills in 1959 to drive away the US-backed kleptocrat dictator Batista. What began as a simple nationalist movement was quickly driven into the "Communist" camp by the hostility of the American government. The new regime weathered numerous attempts to displace it, including Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion, and miscellaneous attempts by the CIA to assassinate Castro. Simultaneously, the former guerrillas declared for "Communism", and abandoned dreams of national autarky by becoming a sugar plantation for the USSR rather than the US. (See Socialist Standard, April 1984).

I would like a specific link to this "Socialist Standard 1984." That way, I could refute it.

Also, Cuba needed an economy, they had morre sugar than the Cuban population needed, so exporting was the best option. Because the Cuban economy relied on sugar exportation, and the Soviet Union was a major economic power that would help Cuba develop. It was by no means a "plantation," and you give no real facts, only rhetoric ebcause it was forced to trade with a nation with Cuba's interests in mind.


The US has never been able to forgive the expropriation of its millionaires by Castro's party, and has maintained its siege ever since. For its part, the Castro regime has proven remarkably resilient (to the point at which American planners are now taking the 'biological resolution', i.e. Castro's death from old age, as the most likely way for them to advance their cause). In that time, the regime has maintained a tight control over the economy. At times, this has meant a heavy bureaucratic hand, requiring strings of permits to produce, distribute and export or import goods.

Often in necessity, as the pursuit of socialism often dictates a strong control of the economy for the better distribution to its workers. The point I assume comes later.


None of this has abolished the commodity nature of production, nor the wages system. A fact starkly illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the loss of Cuba's export markets as well as the convenient supply of oil for industrial purposes. The economy underwent serious recession, from which it has yet to fully recover. Since then, the government has been trying to re-orientate the economy towards tourism to bring in essential foreign currency. This has led to a situation in which goods are produced solely to be consumed by tourists in their enclaves which are denied the Cuban workers.

I freely admit that Cuba is not socialism. So it relies on a capitalist market because the rest of the the world is capitalist, and it is necessary to survive.

Also, there is a reason that Cuba is pursuing relations with Venezuala, as this offers new economic opputunities and also the oil you mentioned. Note also that you provide no proof of the distribution of Cuban goods to tourism. Note that Castro has become aware of the very mistake you mentioned, which is why he banned the US Dollar, because of the imbalance in currencies, it created a two sided economy. Those with access to foreign currency and those who didn't. The Castro Administration as well as teh Cuban legislature is seeking to repair that.


The continued existence of the wages system has meant the need for measures to impose labour discipline. The Cuban state only recognises one trade union federation, Central de Trabajadores Cubanos (CTC). This consists of unions entirely dominated by the ruling Communist Party, wherein officers are vetted (not just by their present affiliations, but on a documentary of their entire lives going back to their school records) before they are allowed to take up posts. Whilst independent trade unions are not entirely illegal, their existence is subject to repressive controls and harassment, beginning with the Associations Act (Leyes de Asociaciones) and escalating to the generally repressive political order laws. (Source: http://www.icftu.org/).

This is where they have a point, if not one that overrides everything that is favorable about Cuba. Personally, I do not have enough knowledge to fully rebutt this, but I will do more research before replying.


As Amnesty International notes, in the past few years, the numbers of long term political dissidents imprisoned has fallen; but this is counter-posed by an increase in short-run harassment techniques, like arrest without trial, breaking up of meetings, threats of eviction, etc. According to the ICFTU (an organisation which the British TUC is affiliated to) in the early months of this year over 78 union activists had been targeted by the Cuban state. One, for example, was arrested for attempting to resist a state organised eviction of a family.

I wish I had more links to specific information, so I may rebutt this more easily and with a larger knowledge of the "facts."


Although Cuba nominally has 100 percent post-16 suffrage, this is restricted to candidates approved by the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution. Likewise, a plethora of laws make free criticism and electoral organisation impossible: Article 144(17) of the criminal code prohibits disrespect to authority; Articles 200-201 preventing the spread and cause of panic and disorder have been used to imprison people publicly voicing criticisms; Article 103 prohibits 'enemy propaganda' which is interpreted as anyone inciting criticism of the Cuban system and its international allies; Article 203 criminalises disrespect to the flag and symbols of the regime; Article 115 prevents the dissemination of 'false news against international peace'; and the piece de résistance is articles 72-74 which forbid anything 'dangerous', which can be anything the police and courts decide are so (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/).

Wouldn't evidence of a decrease in political prisoners point towards increased political freedom through precedents, international pressure, and internal reform? Governments are not statics.

Article 144(17) is not necessarily dissent towards political candidates or the government. It is disrespect, which can be interpretated differently.

For Articles 200-201, I would like sources on these accusations, and to what extent these "criticisms" were.

Article 103 can be interpretated that way, but considering how much actual propaganda enters Cuba via the US and the blatant involvement of the US State Department in this "dissenters," I can see the reasoning behind the law. It needs amending and clarification.

Article 203 seems to be a law that is unnecessary. But there are alot of laws in other nations that are. Laws can be changed, you know.

Article 115 is rather vague, and I am curious what point is being made.

Articles 72-74 seem unnecesarry, but the context in which were passed and in what context they are included may lead to more logical reasonign behind it.

May I also note that laws can be changed, and that laws that are unnecesarry and oftentimes abusive. But there are instances where they can be changed. Perhaps we should urge Cubans involved in politics to try and change these laws?


This battery of laws amounts to an arsenal fit to stop any independent thought and organisation,

No, it can not. The Cuban people are allowed to think what they wish, privately discuss their dissent, and organize in non-public congregation. Cuba is not free as ti can be, but considering the delicate situation, the Castro administration and other Cubans responsible for running this nation are doing what they believe will defend the revolution. I may not agree with their methods, but I don't believe that the extent that it has been proven is enough to condemn it fully.


and amounts to a capacity to arrest anyone the state doesn't like, any time they want.

Really? I don't see that.


In a situation in which workers cannot hope to organise politically,

Not all organization needs to be official, sanctioned unions. Informal organization often works just as well, I don't think revolutionary groups applied at their local government agency.


it makes free association in trade unions impossible.

Define "free association."


All of this needs to be borne in mind when stories are repeated by supporters of Cuba (such as the Cuba Solidarity Campaign) about how workers have democracy and freedom to organise in Cuba; or of how workplace committees and trade unions decide industrial matters. Indeed, as the ICFTU points out, the requirements of the Labour Code demand that collective agreements be decided by both workers' meetings, and the employers, with the Communist Party being heavily involved on both sides of these negotiations. There is no legally-sanctioned right to strike.

I don't believe that the right to strike needs to be sanctioned to be allowed. And don't strikes often end in negotiations?

[quoe]Thus, although there are formal and nominal freedoms, much like in the USSR, in practice they are undermined by highly centralised capacity to crush dissent. In the absence of political and trade union freedoms, then, the working conditions of Cuban workers are hard. Their living standards drastically cut by the recent recessions, even if they "agreed" to this in mass meetings to save their jobs. International companies that invest in Cuba are compelled to hire their workers via agencies. These agencies pocket 95 percent of the dollar value of the wages. State officials maintain that this is to maintain Cuban equality, and not to direct the dollars into state hands. This despite the obvious stratification of Cuban society that has emerged.[/quote]

Where is the source for these numbers? I have never even heard of these "agencies," and 95% sounds very much like an exaggeration.


The romantic supporters of Cuba put their concerns for "national rights" before class solidarity, in supporting the Cuban regime. They excuse its actions as a necessary defence against US aggression, and will it to survive against the greater power, even at the expense of its workers' lives and liberties. And they can point to its impressive record on health care, education and education (much better than in much of the rest of Latin America: including a healthy 76 year life expectancy).

The reason I support Cuba is that it is more favorable to support than nearly any other government. It is anti-imperialist, so it is worthy to support until material conditions are right for it to become socialist.


Cuba does indeed show what could be possible, even with meagre resources to meet the needs of human beings, and how artificial the deprivation across much of the rest of the world is. But the difference in treatment stems largely from an autarkic nation's need to maintain a functioning workforce versus the surplus population of the mono-export countries of much of the rest of South America.

Castro makes mistakes. Cuba makes mistakes. We need to work in helping them rectifying these mistakes. Complaining and talk does not equal action.


Socialists do not consider that the best way to assist the workers of Cuba is to support the régime that dragoons them in siege warfare with the US,

You do not represent every "socialist." In fact, may of us are Marxist, and believe that Material conditions are not correct for socialism in Cuba, or much of the rest of the world. Cuba's government is much more preferable than the U$, or the UK, or Russia, ecetera ecetera ecetera.


but that the spread of the world socialist revolution is the only way to rescue them from the unpalatable set of choices facing them.

I believe Cuba's government is receptive to revolutionary though and certainly not reactionary. When the time for revolution is here, will it not also affect Cuba? Why not, until then, make sure that imperialists do not have their hands on something else to exploit?


To do that, we need to free socialism from the taint of the undemocratic methods applied in Cuba

Socialism cannot exist in the same atmosphere Cuba is in. It exists in a world market. The world market must be destroyed before socialism can exist.


and stand clearly for the political freedoms of association and speech for the working class the world over, so as better to spread the ideas and consciousness required for the building of a truly stateless classless world co-operative commonwealth.

We can stand for political freedom in Cuba without condemning it. That sums up my sentiment.

[Paradox]

Wait, "at the expense of its workers' lives"...."76 year life expectancy". Self-contradiction anyone?

Yes, that was contradictory wasn't it?

Would you guys like me to post the link to this thread in the WSM forum? So they could come post here why they believe everything said in that piece? Please tell me yes!

[Paradox]

Here's the response by the author of the article to your posts:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/26103

[Severian]

That's not much of a reply. And the author seems to have a real problem deciding which side he's on in the world class struggle. "They say in Harlan County/that there are no neutrals there..."

I might point out additionally that the article is basically arguing for bourgeois democracy in Cuba. That would be a step backward, since a considerable degree of workers' democracy exists. A socialist approach is to work to expand that workers' democracy, starting with the Communist Party, CTC unions, and other organizations which the most class-conscious workers in Cuba belong to.

(Especially the party...one interesting innovation in Cuba is that to join the Communist Party, you gotta be approved by a vote of your coworkers.)

For those of us abroad, that means above all opposing the U.S. embargo and other attacks on Cuba - which cannot be done if you insist on blaming Castro for the "siege". (Uncle Sam's not responsible for his actions?) Siege conditions are not the best for the full development of any kind of democracy.

Here's a couple articles by people who've actually talked to Cuban workers, attended workplace assemblies and so forth...
link (http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6013/6013_18.html)
link (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6518/651852.html)

And a fun little bit of info I found while searching around: it's a leaked U.S. government memo on the phoniness of a lot of claims of Cuban human rights abuses...
link (http://www.nowaroncuba.org/Documentation/Hypocrisy_memo_on_Human_Rights_in_Cuba.htm)

[Famepollution]

Is cuba Good or bad?

Well thats a tricky question. What do you mean by good? Good for what?

Is cuba good for Communism? No, Cuba Is still a hierachal society and so thus is not furthering communism to any decree.

Is cuba good to its people? Well How good, Its not good enough to keep all of its populace there. Its not good enough to have a class less society.

Is it good to its people compared to other countries? yes, But we as people in general should try to make better. Not focus On Hierarchal Dictaterships no matter how friendly they are,

Thus Debating how good "Cuba" is is a pointless,

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Cuba was going in the right direction, but the US strained their economy, and it has failed.


:rolleyes:

Define 'failed'.