new chinese/cuban relations--your opinion

[danyboy27]

what do you guy think of the recents events concerning china and cuba?
there is rumor that cuba might open its system to free market, but keep most of its social and political structures the same.

your opinions on the subject?

[RGacky3]

there is rumor that cuba might open its system to free market, but keep most of its social and political structures the same.

your opinions on the subject?

It would'nt suprise me, its hard to keep a State Socialist system running with all that pressure and the government higher ups would'nt loose much if they opened their market system. Think about it, they keep their power, they loose the pressure, they can start making more money.

Now what I hope happens, is that the Cuban people take over the state and the economy. Which could happen, but not with out a lot of struggle.

If that does happen it would be very interesting to see how the US reacts, that would be a very tough PR situation, maybe for the first time ever the US would support the Cuban government, either that or they would try and install a puppet government or try and infiltrate the uprising somehow, but I guarantee they would'nt let the uprising happen without trying to stop it.

[BobKKKindle$]

there is rumor that cuba might open its system to free market

Someone like you saying that there is a "rumour" something is about to happen does not mean it true or even probable. If you have any evidence to show that Cuba is about to implement market reforms then you should post it for everyone to see, because the Cuban government has not yet given any indication that they intend to move away from collective ownership, and as Cuba cultivates closer economic ties with other countries such as China they will be able to move beyond the difficulties of the "special period" and will face less pressure to introduce market reforms, because trade with these countries will help alleviate the material scarcity which currently exists in Cuba, and solidfy popular support for Cuba's achivements.

[RGacky3]

because the Cuban government has not yet given any indication that they intend to move away from collective ownership

By Collective you mean State, and by State I mean non-accountable to the people State.

The evidence is that China is trading more with Cuba, and common sense would say that that would give China more political pull with Cuba, which would probably mean they would be facing more pressure to open up their markets.

[BobKKKindle$]

common sense would say that that would give China more political pull with Cuba, which would probably mean they would be facing more pressure to open up their markets.

"Common sense" does not dictate what you suggest at all, and it's embarrassing that you have to resort to appeals to "common sense" to hide your absolute lack of political analysis or empirical evidence. Cuba is obviously trading more with China, but there is no reason to assume that this increased trade will automatically result in China being able to exercise strong political influence over Cuba, and even if this influence does emerge, you have not explained why China would automatically want Cuba to adopt market reforms, given that this could potentially allow the US to expand its regional influence and even topple the Cuban government, leading to the loss of one of China's main diplomatic allies in the Americas.

[RGacky3]

Cuba is obviously trading more with China, but there is no reason to assume that this increased trade will automatically result in China being able to exercise strong political influence over Cuba, and even if this influence does emerge, you have not explained why China would automatically want Cuba to adopt market reforms, given that this could potentially allow the US to expand its regional influence and even topple the Cuban government, leading to the loss of one of China's main diplomatic allies in the Americas.

First of all, its CHINA who is trading with Cuba, what I mean by that is China is the bigger super power, and has more options and thus more clout. The influence is the same as Americas influence with its "trading parteners," the country becomes dependant on US money, (or china), the US (or china) controls more of the reasources (be it directly or indirectly), thus the smaller weaker country has to bow to the bigger countries or corporations wishes, because they have a lot to loose.

China would want Cuba to adopt more market reforms so that it could profit more from it, when I say market I don't mean free market perse, I mean China is gonna want to get the most out of Cuba that it can, and market reforms could do that.

Of coarse it can be avoided, small countries can trade with huge super powers and avoid political influence, but at this point, really, whats the motivation for the Cuban government?

Of coarse I"m not saying its gonna happen 100%, but theres a chance it will, and it almost certainly would benefit the chineese, and probably the Cuban elite if it did

[Magdalen]

Someone like you saying that there is a "rumour" something is about to happen does not mean it true or even probable. If you have any evidence to show that Cuba is about to implement market reforms then you should post it for everyone to see, because the Cuban government has not yet given any indication that they intend to move away from collective ownership, and as Cuba cultivates closer economic ties with other countries such as China they will be able to move beyond the difficulties of the "special period" and will face less pressure to introduce market reforms, because trade with these countries will help alleviate the material scarcity which currently exists in Cuba, and solidfy popular support for Cuba's achivements.

You seem to have a very progressive and sensible position on Cuba, a position most unlike your party's line. I'm glad to see that not all members of the SWP swallow the bilge put out by Mike Gonzalez!

[danyboy27]

i was watching the bbc channel and i saw some footages of the chinese with raul talking about the economy, and they mentionned there was rumour of a more free market reform.

but i dont base my judgement only on that, i also consider the fact that raul made several significant reform, like allowing farmer to actually buy farm and being able to purchase machinery rather than depending on the state for those need. there is also the reform allowing citizen of having the right to be in a hotel, priviledge formerly help by tourist.
the cell phone reform allowing people to actually use and own a cellphone, there is also that reform that allow them to own a computer.

all that beccause of raul. then you got the visit of the chinese, formerly, castro was unsure toward the way of dealing with them, but raul seem to actually be at ease with them, unlike fidel.

btw bob can you develop what kind of people i am, you where talking about me and you said :someone like you.

[BobKKKindle$]

RGacky3:


The influence is the same as Americas influence with its "trading parteners," China is not part of the same group of countries as the US, because China is not an imperialist country. The main way in which China is currently benefiting from its relationship with Cuba is not any form of commercial exploitation which has allowed China to enrich itself at the expense of the Cuban population, but Cuba's diplomatic role as one of China's most important allies in a region where China's influence has historically been weak. This means that China has an interest in protecting the Cuban government, and this is why at the diplomatic meeting earlier this month China donated 4.5 tonnes of humanitarian aid for victims of three hurricanes that battered Cuba this year, as well as a $70 million loan designed to repair damaged hospitals and support Cuba's healthcare system, and China also agreed to cancel all of the debts Cuba has accumulated since they borrowed money from China in 1990s. If China were intent on simply exploiting Cuba, they would not have shown this generosity, which indicates a desire to cultivate closer diplomatic relations with Cuba and maintain the friendly relationship which currently exists between the two countries.

Spetnaz21:


i was watching the bbc channel [...] and they mentionned there was rumour of a more free market reform.The BBC and the rest of the capitalist media said exactly the same thing earlier this year when Cuba chose to abolish wage caps and allow certain professions to receive a slightly higher income than others, intending to increase labor productivity, as described in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/cuba) article by the Guardian newspaper. However, in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/cuba) letter sent to the Guardian, Helen Yaffe explains how these reforms were fully consistent with socialism and do not signify that Cuba is about to return to market capitalism. The capitalist media is constantly trying to make it seem as if Cuba is on the verge of abandoning the socialist project and following the example set by the Chinese government, but the reality is that Cuba has been able to develop effective solutions to the problems they faced during the "special period" following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which provided Cuba with a guaranteed market for its goods and agreed to purchase these goods above the price Cuba could obtain on the world market, and Cuba remains one of the few developing countries in the world which is able to provide its citizens with secure employment and access to a high quality of healthcare, as well as other services which are not available to the vast majority of the working population in other countries at the same stage of economic development as Cuba.


but i dont base my judgement only on that, i also consider the fact that raul made several significant reformThe problem with your argument is that none of the reforms you mentioned have anything to do with introducing the market system - farmers are now allowed to go and buy the tools they need in stores, but these stores are still owned by the state and the tools are purchased from abroad using funds which are also under the control of the state, and the primary aim of this policy is to increase agricultural production, not to encourage some farmers to become richer than others, or to introduce private farming. This reform is sensible as the people who are actually working on the land and have practical experience with agriculture are in a good position to decide when the use of machinery would increase production, and what kind of machinery should be used - and the fact that the Cuban government is capable of implementing these kind of reforms shows they have a dynamic approach to the economy and are able to shift their policies in response to changing circumstances. As you pointed out, there are also other reforms which have allowed Cubans to purchase goods which were previously disallowed or subject to tight regulations - but to understand why these goods are being allowed now we have to appreciate that the bans were originally put in place during the "special period" to prevent the emergence of a pervasive inequality in the distribution of goods, and now that the Cuban economy is beginning to grow rapidly and the difficulties of the "special period" have been overcome (often through impressive ingenuity on the part of ordinary Cubans, especially in relation to sustainable farming) there is no longer a reason to maintain the bans, as ordinary Cubans now have enough money to purchase these kinds of goods and so there is no danger of the goods being restricted to a small elite.


all that beccause of raul. then you got the visit of the chinese, formerly, castro was unsure toward the way of dealing with themThese reforms are not all because of Raul, they have taken place under Raul's presidency because changes in conditions mean that now is the right time for the reforms to be implemented - but they would still have been implemented if Castro had remained president, because policy proposals are created and developed through the national assembly, in cooperation with local organizations, not individual leaders.


bob can you develop what kind of people i am, you where talking about me and you said :someone like you. I meant people who do not have a grasp of what is actually going on in Cuba and simply accept what they have been told to believe.

PaddyFD:


You seem to have a very progressive and sensible position on CubaThank you comrade, I do indeed have problems with the SWP position on this issue.

[PostAnarchy]

I think Cuba is doing whatever is has to do with the US embargo and all - pretty neutral on this

[danyboy27]

i seriously think Castro held back many idea that raul or his buddies had mainly beccause it didnt fit with his version of socialism.

you have to admit, since Raul is there many thing are rapidly changing, we are not talking of minor change here, but a series of verry profound change in the regime. the fact they are allowing now farmer to buy their land and tool is to me a real sign that they are wlowly opening up to market economy.

also, they would not allow them to own cellphone and computer if they had has a global plan to keep things has they are, they are aware that with such a move there will be a certain number of idea and thinking that will dirrectly come in conflict with the current handling of the country.

my theory on that is: they want a market economy, but they dont want to finish dead broke like east germany or the east european socialist regimes after the fall of the ussr.

a market economy, even if small, would be a good move to both rentabilize their societal gain, and keeping the american at bay.
Of course, they will not go and hug the american overnight, but that should release some tension they had with the us, maybe decrease the ambargo.

of course that a theory, but to me it does make sense.

you can hate the bbc, but seriously that the only news channel i can relatively trust. Usually i only keep the facts,but sometimes some of their commentaries does make sense, like what they said about the possibility of an opening to market economy. i am not watching the regular bbc tho, i am watching bbc world.

[PostAnarchy]

True but the presence of the Castro leadership prevents and acts as a bulwurk agaisnt real workers control.

[RGacky3]

China is not part of the same group of countries as the US, because China is not an imperialist country. The main way in which China is currently benefiting from its relationship with Cuba is not any form of commercial exploitation which has allowed China to enrich itself at the expense of the Cuban population, but Cuba's diplomatic role as one of China's most important allies in a region where China's influence has historically been weak. This means that China has an interest in protecting the Cuban government, and this is why at the diplomatic meeting earlier this month China donated 4.5 tonnes of humanitarian aid for victims of three hurricanes that battered Cuba this year, as well as a $70 million loan designed to repair damaged hospitals and support Cuba's healthcare system, and China also agreed to cancel all of the debts Cuba has accumulated since they borrowed money from China in 1990s. If China were intent on simply exploiting Cuba, they would not have shown this generosity, which indicates a desire to cultivate closer diplomatic relations with Cuba and maintain the friendly relationship which currently exists between the two countries.


You've got to be kidding me, Not an Imperialist country? Chinas probably #2 in economic Imperialism, have you been watching whats been going on in Africa Lately?

Yes China has an interest in protecting the Cuban government, because its an ally, but it also sees dollar signs, and its obvious it sees dollar signs by its new economic deals, and if you think its going to trade fairly, even though its has much more economic pull your fooling yourself.

You also have to remember that the United States does the same thing with governments that are friendly and wants to dip into. No country is generous just to be nice guys.

At this point the Cuban government does'nt have much power, China has a lot of it, and as far as I see it, China and Cuba have a kind of prison ***** relationship. If you don't believe that look at Africa.


I think Cuba is doing whatever is has to do with the US embargo and all - pretty neutral on this

Excactly and China knows this. Right now the worst thing that can happen to this relationship is America opening up its market to Cuba. Because that would give Cuba options, but by that time I think China might have been able to get a good economic grasp.

The Chineese government are business men, like any other.

[Magdalen]

i seriously think Castro held back many idea that raul or his buddies had mainly beccause it didnt fit with his version of socialism.

you have to admit, since Raul is there many thing are rapidly changing, we are not talking of minor change here, but a series of verry profound change in the regime. the fact they are allowing now farmer to buy their land and tool is to me a real sign that they are wlowly opening up to market economy.

also, they would not allow them to own cellphone and computer if they had has a global plan to keep things has they are, they are aware that with such a move there will be a certain number of idea and thinking that will dirrectly come in conflict with the current handling of the country.

my theory on that is: they want a market economy, but they dont want to finish dead broke like east germany or the east european socialist regimes after the fall of the ussr.

a market economy, even if small, would be a good move to both rentabilize their societal gain, and keeping the american at bay.
Of course, they will not go and hug the american overnight, but that should release some tension they had with the us, maybe decrease the ambargo.

of course that a theory, but to me it does make sense.

you can hate the bbc, but seriously that the only news channel i can relatively trust. Usually i only keep the facts,but sometimes some of their commentaries does make sense, like what they said about the possibility of an opening to market economy. i am not watching the regular bbc tho, i am watching bbc world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/cuba

This is an excellent comment piece written by Helen Yaffe for The Guardian in response to an article which slandered Cuba following the new salary incentives introduced this June.

Your theory that "Castro held back many ideas of Raul and his buddies" with regards to the market is ludicrous. The changes in the management of agriculture were necessary steps to increase productivity which had to be taken in response to the world food crisis, which has forced Cuba to import less food from abroad.

The ending of restrictions on the ownership of goods such as cellphones and computers has been made possible by the expansion of Cuba's power generation capacity and the introduction of low-energy electrical devices during the "Energy Revolution". The lifting of these restrictions has also allowed for hard currency remittances from abroad to be put back into the Cuban legal economy, benefiting all the island's people.

The Internet has been completely accessible to Cubans on an un-restricted basis for well over 10 years from public Internet cafés, and phone calls outside of the country have never been prevented during the Revolution. Ideas communicated via these mediums are already fully accessible. Despite the widespread availability of counter-revolutionary propaganda, over 90% percent of Cubans still support the socialist system at the ballot box.

Oh, and if you trust the BBC, you should do some research on their reporting of the British Miners Strike of 1984/85; and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

[PostAnarchy]

You've got to be kidding me, Not an Imperialist country? Chinas probably #2 in economic Imperialism, have you been watching whats been going on in Africa Lately?

Yes China has an interest in protecting the Cuban government, because its an ally, but it also sees dollar signs, and its obvious it sees dollar signs by its new economic deals, and if you think its going to trade fairly, even though its has much more economic pull your fooling yourself.

You also have to remember that the United States does the same thing with governments that are friendly and wants to dip into. No country is generous just to be nice guys.

At this point the Cuban government does'nt have much power, China has a lot of it, and as far as I see it, China and Cuba have a kind of prison ***** relationship. If you don't believe that look at Africa.



Excactly and China knows this. Right now the worst thing that can happen to this relationship is America opening up its market to Cuba. Because that would give Cuba options, but by that time I think China might have been able to get a good economic grasp.

The Chineese government are business men, like any other.


I think this post is spot on. The Chinese businessmen have run the great capitalist super exploitation center of Asia.

[BobKKKindle$]

China is not an imperialist country, it is part of the oppressed nations, and if China is faced with the threat of imperialist invasion communists should call for the unconditional defense of China against the imperialists. To evaluate whether China is an imperialist country we need to examine China's structural characteristics and determine whether these characteristics meet the definitions provided by Lenin in this pamphlet concerning imperialism. Lenin identifies that a key feature of imperialism is the export of capital, as opposed to the export of goods, and so it is useful to examine the value of China's overseas assets, relative to the value of investment China is currently receiving from the imperialist bloc. The CIA factbook page for China (link (http://www.anonym.to/?https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ)) shows that China's stock of direct foreign investment abroad was $94 billion in 2007. This may appear large, but is small in comparison to China's direct foreign investment at home (the investment that China is receiving) which was $768 billion for the same year. China's export statistics show that China continues to receive the vast majority of its overseas revenue from the export of goods, not returns on foreign investment, as export revenues reached $1.22 trillion in 2007. Based on this, we can conclude that China is not imperialist, because it does not occupy the same structural position in the world economy as countries such as the UK. The fact that China has made some investments in Africa does not mean that China is automatically imperialist because almost every country in the world has at least some investments overseas, and yet China's role in Africa has been overplayed to hide the role of states which actually are imperialist in perpetuating conflict - especially in the Sudan, where China accounts for just 8% of Sudan's total arms imports, and yet bourgeois organizations have made it seem as if China is solely responsible for the ongoing conflict in Darfur.


The Chinese businessmen have run the great capitalist super exploitation center of Asia.

This does not show that China is an imperialist state. The bourgeoisie of each country exploits the working class.

[RGacky3]

To evaluate whether China is an imperialist country we need to examine China's structural characteristics and determine whether these characteristics meet the definitions provided by Lenin in this pamphlet concerning imperialism.

Lenin can eat my balls, Lenin did not invent imperialism.

BTW, imperialism does'nt only come from direct investment to a country, it can also come from investing investing in multinationals, private investments, it can also come from monopolizing the perchasing of resources (undercover investment and take over).

Also the direct foreing investment China is recieving, we don't know where its coming from and what its for, because remember the Government is still holding on to the majority of its economy, which means that it still has the sayso, just because people are profiting from Chinas growth, does'nt mean anything, because China is profiting just as much if not more.

Imperialism IS one country using political or economic influence to control and profit from another country. China is diong this, and its growing in doing this. Now Chinas imperialism might not be at the extent of the United States, BUT keep its still there, and its generally the government companies doing it, not private industries.

What China is doing to Cuba, is NOT for diplomatic relations, its giving Cuba a market for much of its minirals, and it wants to control that market, What Cuba will have to end up doing is playing by Chinas rules, because China will be the ones pumping their economy.

[BobKKKindle$]

Lenin did not "invent" imperialism because imperialism is a stage in the development of the capitalist system and the final stage before capitalism is overthrown and replaced with proletarian dictatorship, not something which is "invented" by an individual, or something which comes into being as the result of a government policy or a series of conscious decisions. Lenin was the only Marxist who was able to correctly identify the origins of imperialism and show the effects that imperialism would have on the world situation in terms of military conflict between imperialist powers and the prospects for revolution in different areas of the world, and his analysis remains largely applicable in the world today, despite certain changes which have taken place in recent years.


Also the direct foreing investment China is recieving, we don't know where its coming from and what its for,Of course we know where investment is coming from and how it is being used - China is receiving the vast majority of its investment from the developed countries, especially the United States and the European Union, as companies which are based on these countries are becoming aware that they can obtain low labour costs and easy access to the raw materials they need to produce their goods if they base manufacturing in China, even if the intended market for the finished goods is located in another part of the world. The investment is concentrated in the consumer goods sector as this is the main concern for the companies mentioned above, and other sectors of the economy such as the energy sector as well as the financial sector are still controlled directly by the state, which means that the involvement of private firms is tightly limited. All of this information can be obtained in the economic reports which are issued regularly by the central government to update observers on the state of the economy. Although China is "profiting" from this investment in terms of job creation and the growth of domestic firms which supply foreign multinationals with components and support services, the fact remains that in sectors where foreign investment is dominant or has an important role, the surplus value which is being generated from the employment of Chinese workers does not remain within China itself but is instead returned to the home bases of the companies which have conducted the investment. This is what you have overlooked, and this is crucial in allowing us to distinguish China from the imperialist bloc.


Imperialism IS one country using political or economic influence to control and profit from another countryThis is a very simplistic definition because it could plausibly encompass every single country in the entire world - on the basis of this definition it could be argued that Venezuela is "imperialist" in relation to Cuba because Venezuela is "profiting" from the Cuban doctors who have traveled to Venezuela to provide free eye operations to poor communities. If a definition is so broad that it includes everything under consideration (i.e. every single country in the entire world with no or very few exceptions) it ceases to be a useful definition. The Marxist conception of imperialism acknowledges that imperialism is based on transfers of surplus value from one part of the world to another, which is made possible through the export of capital as well as other mechanisms which have only emerged recently, such as the debt burden, and unequal exchange. The UK is an imperialist country because it derives a large share of its national income from surplus value which is generated in the developing world, and this is what Marxists mean when they say that the UK or any other imperialist country "exploits" the developing world. It does not mean that the UK "influences" the developing world, as although this is obviously an important part of imperialism which allows the imperialist countries to maintain their dominant position, "exploitation" has a definite and objective meaning in Marxist terminology - it refers to the capitalist paying workers less than the value of what they produce and accumulating the difference as profit (otherwise known as surplus value) which results in workers being denied access to the value they have created on both a national and international scale. It is these transfers of surplus value which give rise to what Lenin described as "rentier states", or countries which do not carry out any productive economic activity (productive here being defined as something which results in surplus value being created) within their own borders, but instead enrich themselves through the exploitation of the developing world. Or, as Lenin explained this:

"Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations—all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism. More and more prominently there emerges, as one of the tendencies of imperialism, the creation of the “rentier state”, the usurer state, in which the bourgeoisie to an ever-increasing degree lives on the proceeds of capital exports and by clipping coupons"

Lenin, 'Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism', 'The Place of Imperialism in History', (1916)

You should be aware that the arguments presented above do not rule out the possibility of China exploiting other countries, as even the poorest countries in the world generally have some overseas assets. However, what we have to consider is whether the net movement of surplus value is positive or negative, i.e. whether the surplus value that China loses to countries such as the UK is greater or smaller than the surplus value that China receives from countries where the Chinese government has made productive investments, such as mining ventures in the Sudan. At the current time China is an oppressed nation, meaning the net movement of surplus value is negative (refer back to the statistics I made in one of my earlier posts for empirical evidence of this) and so communists should call for the unconditional military defense of China if an imperialist attack takes place, but if at any point in the future China becomes an oppressor (i.e. net exploiter) nation, and begins to move in the direction of other countries which are already part of the imperialist bloc and become a rentier state, then communists would be obligated to change our position and support oppressed nations which come under attack from China.

You may of course be wondering at this point why the movement of surplus value is so important, and the central component of imperialism - why, in other words, is Lenin's understanding of imperialism so valuable. This is not merely an academic issue, rather the movement of surplus value is crucial because it determines the prospects for revolutions in different parts of the world. In the imperialist core (the group of countries which are net-exploiters) the bourgeoisie uses a share of the surplus value it receives from the imperialist periphery (the group of countries which are net-exploited) to offer material concessions to workers or a section of the working class in the hope that by making these concessions they will be able to raise living standards to a level which will discourage workers from trying to overthrow the system, and will limit political activity to negotiations within the framework of the bourgeois political surrounding the terms of the consensus between the workers and the bourgeoisie. This is only possible through the surplus value which is generated in periphery, and so as a phenomenon the labour aristocracy (the term that Marxists use to refer to workers who have been "bought off") is specific to the age of imperialism. By contrast, workers in the imperialist periphery cannot be bought off because surplus value is generally removed from the national economy, and the market power of imperialist monopoly means that these workers are often subject to intense conditions of hardship and exploitation which drive them to revolution against capitalism and imperialism. The result of these dynamics (which are, as noted above, specific to imperialism) is that revolution is most likely to originate in countries which are part of the imperialist-periphery and consequently suffer from a lack of economic development, and this has a whole range of implications for how communists go about organizing and promoting revolution.

[Bilan]

"Common sense" does not dictate what you suggest at all, and it's embarrassing that you have to resort to appeals to "common sense" to hide your absolute lack of political analysis or empirical evidence. Cuba is obviously trading more with China, but there is no reason to assume that this increased trade will automatically result in China being able to exercise strong political influence over Cuba, and even if this influence does emerge, you have not explained why China would automatically want Cuba to adopt market reforms, given that this could potentially allow the US to expand its regional influence and even topple the Cuban government, leading to the loss of one of China's main diplomatic allies in the Americas.

That's all a bit up in the air - contrary to your demands for empirical evidence.
Look, there's no certainty that Cuba is going to adopt market reforms (though I do remember some months back hearing about Raul (sp?) preparing to change the Cuban economy, and yes, adopt market reforms) but the certainty is whether Cuba likes it or not, it is subservient to the dominant international economic model, hence, China trading more with Cuba is likely to greatly increase China's influence within Cuba and on the Cuban government due to Cuba's subservience to this economic system, and in turn, its subservience to what is fueling its economy where it has so little options (due to blockades or whatever).
For the Cuban economy to be able to develop in such a hostile environment, it is likely that it probably will - in the future (unless their is a mass proletarian revolution on an international scale) - adopt market reforms. This is not, and should not be surprising.

[RGacky3]

Imperialism is NOT just a stage in Capitalism, Rome was imperialistic, ancient Eygpt was imperialistic.


Lenin was the only Marxist who was able to correctly identify the origins of imperialism and show the effects that imperialism would have on the world situation in terms of military conflict between imperialist powers and the prospects for revolution in different areas of the world, and his analysis remains largely applicable in the world today, despite certain changes which have taken place in recent years.


Lenin correctly talked about one type of Imperialism and one way it could come about, but by no means the only way, and the only type.


hina is receiving the vast majority of its investment from the developed countries, especially the United States and the European Union, as companies which are based on these countries are becoming aware that they can obtain low labour costs and easy access to the raw materials they need to produce their goods if they base manufacturing in China, even if the intended market for the finished goods is located in another part of the world.

Thats true, they are also getting huge amounts of money from their exporting Chineese goods, and also remember that the investment in China is still under CHineese authority, because most of the industrys are still Chineese majority shareholders.


Although China is "profiting" from this investment in terms of job creation and the growth of domestic firms which supply foreign multinationals with components and support services, the fact remains that in sectors where foreign investment is dominant or has an important role, the surplus value which is being generated from the employment of Chinese workers does not remain within China itself but is instead returned to the home bases of the companies which have conducted the investment.

That is true, but remember, profit and control are 2 different things, and in the long run control is more important. But also remember that the Chineese government is buying up bonds in the United States, it goes both ways.

Just because contries are profiting from China does not make it imperialism, because China still has the control over its industries and resources.

Just to give you an example, in ancient rome many many other countries made money doing business with the romans, investing in rome, but that does'nt make rome not imperialist.


This is a very simplistic definition because it could plausibly encompass every single country in the entire world - on the basis of this definition it could be argued that Venezuela is "imperialist" in relation to Cuba because Venezuela is "profiting" from the Cuban doctors who have traveled to Venezuela to provide free eye operations to poor communities. If a definition is so broad that it includes everything under consideration (i.e. every single country in the entire world with no or very few exceptions) it ceases to be a useful definition.

THe imperialistic part comes not from profiting, but from using economic influence and power, or political influence and power, to dictate the other nations, which may be for political or economic reasons.

The sign in my mind of an imperialistic country is if it can tell another country to do something and the other country HAS to do it. the United States can't tell China crap (for now). However Colombia is gonna listen really hard to what the United States says, theres the difference.


The Marxist conception of imperialism acknowledges that imperialism is based on transfers of surplus value from one part of the world to another, which is made possible through the export of capital as well as other mechanisms which have only emerged recently, such as the debt burden, and unequal exchange.

Thats one type, but even thats not nessesarily imperialism, there are other factors that can come to play, i.e. markte factors. Imperialism is control.

Imperialism is not just an economic phenominon its political and social, it includes exploitation but its not exploitation in itself.

YOur definition of Imperialism simply equates to doing well in the global market, with or without Imperialistic coersion. Costa Rica could be imperialistic under that definition.

[BobKKKindle$]

RGacky3, you've completely failed to deal with my points. I explained in my last post why transfers of surplus value are central to imperialism - in terms of value, investment is now far more important than the exchange of material goods, and surplus value transferred from the developing world is responsible for the lack of revolutionary activity in the imperialist core for the past century because it allows the bourgeoisie to "buy off" a section of the working class. Instead, all we've had from you is the repetition of the same old points which have already been refuted. You claim that imperialism is transhistorical even though the conditions for imperialism only come into existence under capitalism, through the transformation of competition into monopoly and the combination of industrial and banking capital. These conditions do not exist under feudalism or even the early stages of capitalist development, which is why Lenin defined imperialism as a phenomenon which is specific to capitalism.


profit and control are 2 different things, and in the long run control is more important. No capitalist class would ever want to control a developing country just because they enjoying being able to exercise control for its own sake, control always exists to ensure that the capitalist class is able to continue extracting surplus value, or to realize political objectives which support the extraction of surplus value elsewhere or at some point in the future. Historically, when control is no longer necessary because a zone of the imperialist periphery has become less important for the core, or if a new form of control becomes possible, the imperialist core has been willing to rapidly relinquish its control, as occurred in Africa after WW2.


Thats one type, but even thats not nessesarily imperialism, there are other factors that can come to play, i.e. markte factors. Imperialism is control. The movement of surplus value is more important than other economic concerns such as gaining access to internal markets because the developed countries have all suffered a decline in their manufacturing sectors (In the UK the manufacturing sector accounts for just over twelve percent of GDP and is mainly comprised of the armaments sector, which is under government control and exists to support military expansion in the developing world) and so their capacity to generate export revenue is limited, and the economies of these countries are now geared towards finance, which manages overseas assets and ensures that surplus value continues to be transferred from the developing world to the UK, so as to support the personal consumption of the bourgeoisie and allow them to "buy off" the working class, which in turn allows surplus value to be realized as workers purchase the goods which have been manufactured in the imperialist periphery.


But also remember that the Chineese government is buying up bonds in the United States, it goes both ways.This is irrelevant, because the value of the bonds that China currently holds is far less than the value of investments in China which are held by the imperialist core, including the US, and so these bonds do not compensate for the movement of surplus value from China to the imperialist core.


Just because contries are profiting from China does not make it imperialism, because China still has the control over its industries and resources.China has only been able to retain a degree of control through the safeguards which have been implemented by the government to limit the extent of imperialist exploitation, but there are already industries where foreign capital is dominant such as the light manufacturing sector, and the role of the imperialist core is constantly increasing, relative to the government and domestic firms, showing that even China is unable to withstand the spread of imperialism.


which may be for political or economic reasons.Marxists reject the artificial and illusory distinction between politics and economics as we realize that all political decisions made under capitalism are intended to preserve the class rule of the bourgeoisie, which in the age of imperialism means maintaining the movement of surplus value from the periphery to the core, for reasons that have already been stated above.


The sign in my mind of an imperialistic country is if it can tell another country to do something and the other country HAS to do it.This is not a scientific definition of imperialism. If a country acts in a way which appears to suit the interests of the imperialist core it is difficult to know what would happen if the country tried to act in a different way which enhanced the interests of its own citizens, at the expense of the imperialist core, although such a country would obviously face external pressures such as the sudden withdrawal of investment and even the threat of imperialist invasion, every country in the world can technically act in any way it wants to, because unless a country is subject to occupation by a foreign power, the government of that country has a monopoly on the use of power within its own borders.


YOur definition of Imperialism simply equates to doing well in the global market, with or without Imperialistic coersion. Costa Rica could be imperialistic under that definition.At no point in this discussion have I ever used the expression "doing well in the global market" as I have consistently and correctly emphasized the overriding importance of investment and surplus value. In any case, even if this was the definition I have been using, Costa Rica would not be an imperialist state because it has been relegated to a position of primary product dependency as manufactured goods imported from other countries have prevented the growth of a domestic manufacturing sector and have undermined the stability of Costa Rica's economy, as primary products (bananas and coffee in the case of Costa Rica) attain a low price on the global market and are also vulnerable to sudden fluctuations in value due to speculation and other factors, which makes it difficult for the government to plan domestic investment. The only manufacturing which does exist in Costa Rica is the result of foreign investment and so is simply a means to take advantage of the labour force and extract surplus value.