Cuba and sugar

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The heavy reliance on sugar production, the one-crop program all over Cuba, was one of the most important reasons for the impoverishment of the Cuban people. Yet, when the revolutionaries took power, Cuba continued to rely heavily on sugar. The Cuban leadership even struggled to produce even greater amounts of sugar.

Why is that? The economy could have been more diversified. Cuba could have become more self-sufficient in terms of basic needs.
During the special period, many Cubans starved, suffered from malnutrition, etc. But it didn't have to be Cuba's "destiny": Over 50 percent of Cuba's land is fertile soil. Why the one-crop policy?

[redstar2000]

This is a rather complicated question...not to mention that it probably belongs in the History forum.

But here, for what it's worth, is a "short" answer.

Like most countries dominated by imperialism, that portion of Cuba's economy that was of direct interest to the imperialists was "hyper-developed"...while much of the rest was left to languish.

The money earned by Cuban sugar went to finance a "first world" life-style for the Cuban elite by the importing of "high-tech" goodies that could not be manufactured in Cuba itself.

When Cuba became a dependency of the old USSR, the same relationship prevailed. Cuba imported technology from the USSR and paid for it with sugar.

Thus, though Cuba became far more egalitarian after the revolution there, it remained "stuck" in a colonial relationship with a more advanced country.

It is said that Che Guevera was a strong voice for the technological development of Cuba after the revolution -- Cubans should learn to "make their own" high-tech goodies instead of importing them. That's what would really end colonialism in Cuba.

He was right. But he evidently "lost the fight" to move Cuba onto the path of modern development.

Too bad. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[KC]

The money earned by Cuban sugar went to finance a "first world" life-style for the Cuban elite by the importing of "high-tech" goodies that could not be manufactured in Cuba itself.


Who are these "Cuban elite" that you speak of? Pre-Batista or Post-Batista?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lazar
Who are these "Cuban elite" that you speak of? Pre-Batista or Post-Batista?

Pre-Batista and that which existed during Batista's tyranny, primarily.

It seems likely that the "revolutionary elite" never enjoyed the kinds of luxuries that the pre-revolutionary elite enjoyed...though it is indisputable that they still live substantially better than the "ordinary Cuban".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Floyce White]

What about the special stores for upper-ups only (and where do they get all that money to spend)? What about the special privileges to use tourist zones (not really "tourist" zones are they--more like the private islands and private beach communities in the US or the Bahamas)? The current Cuban upper class has tons of elite advantages.

Sugar? Did you ever wonder why the USSR had to import so much cane sugar, even though it had immense production of beet sugar? So much sugar was stolen by petty capitalists in management to make and sell vodka, that sugar had to be imported.

[DisIllusion]

Why didn't the U.S.S.R try to start a technological niche in Cuba? I know that Cuba has a lot of attention on medical sciences, but how come they didn't have any support in technology? Which is why they're still driving their old "Yank Tanks".

[Floyce White]

You caught me online.

The USSR was the homeland of a capitalist empire. Cuba became one of its neocolonies. Empires always keep neocolonies as less-developed monocultures under price scissors.

[ReD_ReBeL]

ok i know this is off-topic but im only posting this one thing since i see you on bout the USSR, see how we(communist and other leftists) oppose Colonialism , how come nobody says anything about the Soviet Russia ruling ukraine etc , thats colonialism too

[Floyce White]

Yes, but I'm not going to get all teary-eyed about the "poor poor" Ukranian bourgeoisie, Scottish bourgeoisie, Southern Confederate bourgeoisie, and so on. Every family and bloc of capitalists wants to be the biggest and therefore ruling capitalists in their own countries--if by doing so they can make more profit and accumulate more property.

[Correa]

Redstar is pretty much on point with his answer. As for the Soviet Union and Cuba, Che always thought that Cuba had traded one master for another.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:22 AM
Redstar is pretty much on point with his answer. As for the Soviet Union and Cuba, Che always thought that Cuba had traded one master for another.
How about a Che quote on that, then?

Cuba continued concentrating on sugar production for the simple reason that the USSR paid them an excellent price for sugar. If this was typical of colonialism, colonialism would look pretty good! But unfortunately it's not. On the contrary, this trade relationship was typical of non-profit-based economic relations between post-capitalist economies.

The revenue from selling sugar to the USSR paid not only for Cuba's social programs, but for efforts to develop other areas of the economy.

The Cuban revolution certainly could not have survived the early years of the U.S. embargo and attacks without Soviet economic assistance. Thanks in part to years of that aid, the revolution eventually became strong enough to survive the collapse of the Soviet bloc, together with the tightening of the U.S. embargo.

It was, of course, an error to rely on trade relations with the USSR as if they would last forever. Concentrating so heavily on sugar production was an error in that sense, certainly. But not in the way that the standard Maoist BS (repeated here by Redstar) claims. Their advocacy of national economic self-sufficiency is a reactionary utopia.

Old thread where I respond in detail to some Maoists' BS about Soviet "colonialism" and Cuba (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31514&hl=)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The heavy reliance on sugar production, the one-crop program all over Cuba, was one of the most important reasons for the impoverishment of the Cuban people. Yet, when the revolutionaries took power, Cuba continued to rely heavily on sugar. The Cuban leadership even struggled to produce even greater amounts of sugar. Why is that? The economy could have been more diversified. Cuba could have become more self-sufficient in terms of basic needs.

The sugar was used to "buy industrialization". It was used to modernize agriculture, build things like concrete plants, bottling plants, and other industry.

Plus, they were getting preferentional rates. It was cheaper for them to grow enough sugar to buy the things they needed than to make them.


During the special period, many Cubans starved, suffered from malnutrition, etc.

What?? Can you show me a source on "many Cubans starved"??


But it didn't have to be Cuba's "destiny": Over 50 percent of Cuba's land is fertile soil. Why the one-crop policy?

First of all, there is no "one crop policy". Cuba grows tobacco, coffee, rice, fruits, etc. etc.

The revolutionaries inheirated a colony, plane and simple. The plan was to use sugar to industrialize, and to an extent it worked.

Agriculture's contribution to GDP has decreased from 24% in 1965 to 10% in 1985, to 7% in 2000. Manufacturing increased from 23% of GDP in 1965 to 36% by 1985.

Now over half of the sugar mills in Cuba are closed, and they only make about 3.5 million tons annualy -- in comparison to old numbers of 10 million tons. 100,000 of the 400,000 sugar workers have been trained for other jobs and rice and other crops are being grown on former cane fields.


It seems likely that the "revolutionary elite" never enjoyed the kinds of luxuries that the pre-revolutionary elite enjoyed...though it is indisputable that they still live substantially better than the "ordinary Cuban".

What is this based on? Your assertion alone?

I lived and worked in Cuba w/ Venceremos, I talk to Cuban comrades daily online, and none of them think that party and government officials "still live substantially better than the "ordinary Cuban"."

Of course there is petty corruption, but there are avenues to end it, quickly!


As for the Soviet Union and Cuba, Che always thought that Cuba had traded one master for another.

No he didn't.


What about the special stores for upper-ups only (and where do they get all that money to spend)?

What stores would those be??

Are you talking about dollar stores?


What about the special privileges to use tourist zones (not really "tourist" zones are they--more like the private islands and private beach communities in the US or the Bahamas)?

Special privledges for who? Tourists are already priveledged.

The revolution had to "bend" so that it wouldn't break -- this was the birth of the tourism industry as a major force.

What would you had them done post 1991?


The current Cuban upper class has tons of elite advantages.

Really? Source?? Because even anti-Cuban bourgeois press like the Miami Herald says the opposite.


Sugar? Did you ever wonder why the USSR had to import so much cane sugar, even though it had immense production of beet sugar? So much sugar was stolen by petty capitalists in management to make and sell vodka, that sugar had to be imported.

It was cheaper for the USSR and Eastern Bloc to trade oil and other goods for Cuban cane sugar than to produce beat sugar.

[Severian]

Here's the Miami Herald article that CdeL is probably referring to. (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm)

The Herald's typical bias would incline them to exaggerate the amount of special privilege, if anything.




It seems likely that the "revolutionary elite" never enjoyed the kinds of luxuries that the pre-revolutionary elite enjoyed...though it is indisputable that they still live substantially better than the "ordinary Cuban".
What is this based on? Your assertion alone?

Almost everything Redstar says is based on his assertion alone. Including this statement, you can tell from the phrasing..."it seems likely" to him. It's a statement about himself, not a statement about Cuba, or anyplace else in the material universe. Almost all his posts are like that. It's his method.

[celticfire]

CompaneroDeLibertad: You are wrong. Che did believe that Cuba had simply traded masters, and there were big debates about this in the upper levels. If you want, I can find a number of quotes from Che and even entiry research papers written by scholars on the issue. But your reply ("No he didn't") didn't offer any counter claims.

Though I don't place Cuba in the catagory of socialism, I think they have done some impressive and progressive things and they deserve to be defended from capitalist blockades and imperialist attacks.

But Che did want to industrialize in a BIG way, and he took as the Soviet Union and China as examples of that.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:43 AM
CompaneroDeLibertad: You are wrong. Che did believe that Cuba had simply traded masters, and there were big debates about this in the upper levels. If you want, I can find a number of quotes from Che and even entiry research papers written by scholars on the issue.
The quotes, with sources, would be nice. You're not the first to make this claim, but you'd be the first to offer a shred of evidence in support of it.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What?? Can you show me a source on "many Cubans starved"??

I cannot remember the exact source. But I believe it was a Norwegian, pro-Cuba book. I've read too many books to remember which one.

However, I do remember the book saying something along the lines of: "Thanks to the egalitarian nature of the Cuban revolution, and the successful management by the government, not a single Cuban died, despite heavy food shortages. Many people, however, became malnurished and some also starved for a period of time."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The quotes, with sources, would be nice. You're not the first to make this claim, but you'd be the first to offer a shred of evidence in support of it.

Right.


However, I do remember the book saying something along the lines of: "Thanks to the egalitarian nature of the Cuban revolution, and the successful management by the government, not a single Cuban died, despite heavy food shortages. Many people, however, became malnurished and some also starved for a period of time."

Okay. Some people were undernourished during the special period, that's true. But when I read "starved" I think of starved to death.

I looked it up:

Starved 1. To suffer or die from extreme or prolonged lack of food.
2. Informal. To be hungry.

So then your usage was correct, I just wasn't aware. I appologize.

Because the point I was going to raise -- that you already got to -- was that no one starved to death.

[Hiero]

Cuba continued concentrating on sugar production for the simple reason that the USSR paid them an excellent price for sugar. If this was typical of colonialism, colonialism would look pretty good! But unfortunately it's not. On the contrary, this trade relationship was typical of non-profit-based economic relations between post-capitalist economies.

Horay for social-imperialism. This is a horrible thing to do and is more like capitalism then socialism.

It is obvious that the USSR were making a profit out of this so rather help Cuba build argiculture that would sustain it's people they continued on this track.

I think now Cuba is slowly changing what they produce, to correct problems in nutrition? Someone said that on this site awhile ago.


The quotes, with sources, would be nice. You're not the first to make this claim, but you'd be the first to offer a shred of evidence in support of it.

Oh come off it, it is a commonly known thing on this website that Che began to believe the USSR were Social-imperialist.

What i don't get is how a Trot who is anti USSR, would believe that the USSR would do something good for Cuba?

[Correa]

Well I searched and searched and came up short. I was unable to find a specific quote from Che saying that "Che always thought that Cuba had traded one master for another". If I remember correctly I heard this from my grandfather during his last years of life, but ironically enough he was suffering from Alzheimer's at the time. Therefore I will retract this claim and ask all to suspend judgement for lack of hard evidence. If it were true I should point out that the USSR was a better "master" than the US. After all the trade of sugar for oil was to Cuba's advantage.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:35 AM

Cuba continued concentrating on sugar production for the simple reason that the USSR paid them an excellent price for sugar. If this was typical of colonialism, colonialism would look pretty good! But unfortunately it's not. On the contrary, this trade relationship was typical of non-profit-based economic relations between post-capitalist economies.

Horay for social-imperialism. This is a horrible thing to do and is more like capitalism then socialism.
Why is horrible? How is it typical of capitalism to give such favorable prices?


It is obvious that the USSR were making a profit out of this so rather help Cuba build argiculture that would sustain it's people they continued on this track.

It is obvious they were losing money on the subsidized trade arrangements with Cuba and other COMECON countries. That's why Gorbachev abolished them.


I think now Cuba is slowly changing what they produce, to correct problems in nutrition?

They are drastically moving away from sugar, since they're now getting a truly lousy price on it. Also, their costs for producing sugar are higher than other countries (since Cuba relies on mechanization rather than lots of cheap seasonal labor for the harvest. They had to invent sugar-harvesting machines, since nobody else would bother. They used to get cheap Soviet oil to run them.)



The quotes, with sources, would be nice. You're not the first to make this claim, but you'd be the first to offer a shred of evidence in support of it.

Oh come off it, it is a commonly known thing on this website that Che began to believe the USSR were Social-imperialist.

That's a common rumor, yes....and a frequently refuted one. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42762&st=0&#entry487232)


What i don't get is how a Trot who is anti USSR, would believe that the USSR would do something good for Cuba?

Because I'm a materialist, and proceed from facts.

Your statement of my views is not particularly exact, but that's neither here nor there.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:36 AM
Well I searched and searched and came up short. I was unable to find a specific quote from Che saying that "Che always thought that Cuba had traded one master for another". If I remember correctly I heard this from my grandfather during his last years of life, but ironically enough he was suffering from Alzheimer's at the time. Therefore I will retract this claim and ask all to suspend judgement for lack of hard evidence. If it were true I should point out that the USSR was a better "master" than the US. After all the trade of sugar for oil was to Cuba's advantage.
Thanks! Your honesty is refreshing, especially compared to Hiero's deliberate ignorance and Celticfire's silence.

Here's what Che had to say about Cuba's relations with the USSR. From his speech at the Afro-Asian conference, (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/02/25.htm) one of his last public speeches before going to the Congo. He's critical of the "socialist countries' world market-based terms of trade with other underdeveloped countries in this speech.


How can one apply the term "mutual benefit" to the selling at world-market prices of raw materials costing limitless sweat and suffering in the underdeveloped countries and the buying of machinery produced in today's big, automated factories?

If we establish that kind of relation between the two groups of nations, we must agree that the socialist countries are, in a way, accomplices of imperialist exploitation.

but Soviet-Cuban relations are an example for what should be established more widely:

We have to prepare conditions so that our brothers can directly and consciously take the path of the complete abolition of exploitation, but we cannot ask them to take that path if we ourselves are accomplices of that exploitation. If we were asked what the methods were for establishing just prices, we could not answer because we do not know concretely the full scope of the problems involved. All we know is that, after political discussions, the Soviet Union and Cuba signed agreements advantageous to us, in accordance with which we will sell five million tons of sugar at prices fixed above those of the so-called Free World Sugar Market. The People's Republic of China also pays those prices in buying from us.
....
Arms cannot be regarded as merchandise in our world. They should be delivered to the peoples asking for them for use against the common enemy without any charge at all, and in quantities determined by the need and their availability. That is the spirit in which the USSR and the People's Republic of China have offered us their military aid.We are socialists, we constitute a guarantee of the proper utilization of those arms; but we are not the only ones. And all of us should receive the same treatment.

To the ominous attacks by American imperialism against Vietnam and the Congo, the answer should be the supplying of all the defense equipment they need, and to offer them our full solidarity without any conditions whatsoever.

Emphasis added.

As for any suggestion that Che regarded the USSR as imperialist:

If the imperialist enemy, American or any other, develops its attack against the underdeveloped peoples and the socialist countries, simple logic determines the necessity of an alliance between the underdeveloped peoples and the socialist countries.

I'm not cherry-picking quotes here; those are the only direct references to the USSR and China in the speech, and the main references to the "socialist countries."