Quote of the day: Cuba
"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
--Fidel Castro
Of course, that is the statement that has everyone abuzz. In his article, though, Jeffrey Goldberg provides the most logical explanation for it, which is to provide cover for Raúl Castro's market reforms rather than to repudiate the revolution. Yet it is always strange to see how advocates of a Marxist revolution claim it needs an injection of capitalism to survive, and how Fidel Castro is on board.
20 comments:
Yet it is always strange to see how advocates of a Marxist revolution claim it needs an injection of capitalism to survive...
How is that strange? The Chinese have been saying and doing that for more than 30 years. Same with the Vietnamese.
In fact, even if you go back to the beginning of the 20th Century, you find Marxist Menscheviks in Russia who advocated capitalist development as necessary to bring about the material conditions under which socialism could eventually be developed.
First off, Fidel's comments (if accurate) have to be interpreted in their context, which was an informal social conversation. In that light, the remark must be seen as part of the self-deprecating humor Fidel has always been known for, which Goldberg explicitly notes was on full display during his trip. This was in response to a slightly absurd question of whether Cuba is trying to export its economic model.
Of course I don't doubt there is a grain of truth to what Fidel said. After all, Raul has been harshly critical of many things since he took over - and Fidel has admitted economic mistakes many times in the past.
Economic reforms - not what we would consider capitalist at all - have been taking place at a rapid clip in recent years. Most reforms are based on a collective, cooperative model, which retains State control. Some reforms have given ordinary Cuban workers and farmers more economic autonomy - but not rich Cubans or those with connections to Miami dollars. In other words, this is a controlled opening, and certainly can not be seen as capitalistic, or a market reform - in any traditional sense of the words. I actually see it more in terms of the "withering of the State" theory of communism. Once you've achieved a certain level of socialism, the State can step back and grant autonomy to workers...
"Yet it is always strange to see how advocates of a Marxist revolution claim it needs an injection of capitalism to survive..."
Apart from what Mr. Justin Delacour says, I think this shows a misunderstanding of Marxism. "Communism" was meant to be a final stage of capitalist development. In fact, Marx thought that Commmunism was possible BECAUSE it was the first time in the history of the world that a system existed (capitalism) that would allow a liberatory revolution to take place. As Mr. Justin Delacour says, China and Russia said that before, but I would add that they did so not because they "invented" it, but because they were interpreting Marxism correctly. So I don't see anything "strange" about the need of capitalism by advocates of a Marxist revolution to survive. Also, I don't see how "market reforms" are the same as "capitalism". The market and capitalism are not the same thing.
It's true that we're not really talking about "capitalist" reforms in Cuba, but some private ownership and market mechanisms do seem to be in the cards.
I don't think this has anything to do with the "withering away of the state," though. That part of Marxist "theory" was never particularly well developed, and, in any case, I don't think even the most Marxist of Cuban theoreticians think that Cuba has reached that stage of development.
I agree with Daniel's interpretation of Marx's theories. My sense is that Greg's statement is rooted in a misunderstanding of Marx.
I don't think this has anything to do with the "withering away of the state," though.
I admit it was a bit of a stretch. But I'm going to stand by the general concept, with the understanding that it is not an exact theoretical match (to what is indeed a nebulous Marxist concept).
For example, let's take the granting of ownership rights to small serice providers like barbers and beauticians. They are not granting ownership of those facilities to just anyone. This is only for the workers themselves - something much closer to the communist ideal than the capitalist. Am I wrong?
let's take the granting of ownership rights to small serice providers like barbers and beauticians. They are not granting ownership of those facilities to just anyone. This is only for the workers themselves - something much closer to the communist ideal than the capitalist. Am I wrong?
So the question might be whether individually-owned barber shops are closer to Marx's Communist ideal than something akin to capitalist-owned Supercuts chains. That's a very difficult question to answer, I think. On the one hand, Marx was amazed by the capacity of capitalists to channel vast resources into highly productive, large-scale enterprises. On the other hand, Marx was horrified by the exploitation and alienation of workers under capitalism. Marx did not envision the break-up of productive, large-scale enterprises but rather their socialization (i.e. their collective expropriation by the proletariat). Marx saw small-scale capitalism as essentially primitive, so I don't think Marx was really inclined to view individual proprietorships as anything close to the Communist ideal.
That's not to say that there is no value in the development of small-scale Cuban enterprise. It's simply to say that I don't think that's what Marx had in mind when he referred to communism.
Dont't forget folks, Fidel has recently stated that "death" was knocking at his door when he was gravely ill. When a person has that experience he opens up and admits to a lot of things that they might otherwise not.
Marx saw small-scale capitalism as essentially primitive, so I don't think Marx was really inclined to view individual proprietorships as anything close to the Communist ideal.
But this reform is not about individual proprietorships. It's about worker owned collectives. The workers own the store and make all decisions. That is really the critical distinction. There are no capitalists over here and workers over there. Only hybrids. Yes, they will compete with each other, but their ability to take the next inevitable step under capitalism and freely accumulate, concentrate into monopolizations and exploit are prevented.
Now I guess that gets to your point, which is about size and scale of enterprises. I agree that Marx is often misunderstood here to simply favor small enterprises. It's more complicated. But I think Marx would recognize that there are no great efficiencies to be had from having huge barbershops or huge barbershop chains. In things like agriculture & industry - yes there are advantages to scale. In cutting hair and many other small scale services, not so much. I have to conclude Marx would prefer this small worker owned cooperative model over Supercuts.
This discussion - and subtle distinctions between classes of production - are why Cuba is taking it as slow as can be. They are trying to prevent the excesses and injustices of the Chinese and Vietnamese reforms. Allowing any competition will lead to winners and losers. The hope is that Cuba, this can be a true, fair competition not rigged by the inherent injustices of a capitalist past.
BTW, if anyone is curious, this is one of the most interesting parts of Fidel's recent autobiography - where he talks about economic inefficiencies in the Cuban system.
After Fidel lists a bunch of problems (omittted from the preview I linked to), the questioner (ignacio ramonet) says "You're recognizingn certain errors, then, made by the Revolution...". He says:
We must be daring, we must have the courage to tell the truth. No matter what those bandits outside Cuba say, the news reports that come in tomorrow or the day after with their sarcastic reports... He who laughs last laughs best.
And this is not saying bad things about the Revolution... because we're talking about a Revolution that can face these problems and grab the bull by the horns, better than a bullfighter in Madrid...
That is the key really, socialist Cuba can actually solve problems. They've really made HUGE progress (I won't say solved) on so many issues (literacy, education, health, employment, crime as well as energy and transportation in the past few years). Capitalism can not solve anything.
But I think Marx would recognize that there are no great efficiencies to be had from having huge barbershops or huge barbershop chains.
That's probably true. Of course, barbershops are not part of the commanding heights of an economy. I don't think Marx would look to the social organization of barbershops in assessing whether or not a country is socialist.
A more telling question would concern whether Marx would think the scale of commercial distribution developed by Wal-Mart is a productive advance. I suspect he would have seen it as an advance and that he would have simply called for the socialization of the modern Superstore, not a return to the smaller-scale distribution of the mom-and-pop.
I suspect he would have seen it as an advance and that he would have simply called for the socialization of the modern Superstore, not a return to the smaller-scale distribution of the mom-and-pop.
But of course a socialization of the modern Superstore (like Walmart) would likely remove the very foundation of its supposed "efficiencies" - ie. the disdain and ill-treatment of its workers, the almost complete use of foreign products, its irresponsible environmental practices, its ability to pressure manufactures to lower prices to the lowest levels possible. Basically its race to the bottom mentality.
One of Marx's main thrusts was that only workers can provide the surplus value, which leads to capital accumulation. The higher the exploitation of workers, the higher the profits. A socialized store would lead to less exploitation and therefore less profits and capital accumulation...
Chavez has nationalized several chain stores, and I would be interested in how the store policies have or have not changed.
A decent rebuttal to the triumphalism of US media reporting on this subject is offered in the Guardian. For example, they say:
Nor can the statement be interpreted as him saying that socialism per se has failed – merely that Cuba's current model of it no longer fits the times. He has consistently held the view that there are as many models of socialism as there are countries that try it out. As a Marxist he believes that the particular circumstances of each society and the peculiarities of their histories affect the character of whatever politics they might have – be they communist or capitalist.
What the statement really means is that he agrees with his brother that the way the Cuban system is currently configured has to change, but watch the space carefully – this does not automatically imply that free-market capitalism is the answer – far from it.
...
In a move that the government has actually called a deepening of socialism, the Cubans are about to launch what could potentially become the biggest co-operative project the world has ever seen.
But of course a socialization of the modern Superstore (like Walmart) would likely remove the very foundation of its supposed "efficiencies" - ie. the disdain and ill-treatment of its workers, the almost complete use of foreign products, its irresponsible environmental practices, its ability to pressure manufactures to lower prices to the lowest levels possible.
You're ignoring that, in addition to all the things you mention, the scale of distribution itself is likely to entail a more efficient use of resources. I don't think it's actually true that exploitation is the only source of Wal-Mart's profitability. There is an extremely ugly side to Wal-Mart's profit-making, of course, but the scale of distribution also plays a role in its profitability.
Here's the best summarization of Fidel's response today at the University of Havana. Notice that Fidel does not say Goldberg misquoted him (as many media reports are saying), only that the interpretation of those remarks was off.
His (Castro's) tone was not angry, more baffled and even a bit bemused. At one point Castro said, "I continue to think that Goldberg is a great journalist. He doesn't invent phrases, he transmits them and interprets them."
...
"My idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system no longer works for the United States or the world. How could such a system work for a socialist country like Cuba?"
...
Castro said Goldberg missed the irony in his quip and took issue for the same reason with a a Goldberg blog entry from Tuesday, when he wrote that during another conversation, Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis...
Justin, yes Walmart's massive distribution channels achieve a good deal of efficiency. But if it were not for the anti-US worker attitudes of Walmart, they would have never grown to the behemoth that they are.
And yes, socialist economic theory places economies of scale in high esteem as well. But I would argue that rather than those economies stopping at the corporation door, as they do in capitalism, socialism seeks to achieve system-wide efficiencies in the distribution of goods. Sometimes, of course, the results get bogged down by other socialist concerns such as fairness and equality...
Justin, yes Walmart's massive distribution channels achieve a good deal of efficiency. But if it were not for the anti-US worker attitudes of Walmart, they would have never grown to the behemoth that they are.
Right, and that's really the paradox within all of Marx's work. Exploitation is the primary basis of capital accumalation, but capital accumulation is also the material foundation upon which an egalitarian socialist society can be built.
Yes Justin, but that apparent contradiction is why WHO accumulates capital is so important to Marx. If the State accumulates the surplus and the State is committed to reinvesting those profits for the the proletariat/worker/poor, then you can not say there is significant worker exploitation. However, when a capitalist or capitalist state takes those profits for their own benefit, this is exploitation.
Yes Justin, but that apparent contradiction is why WHO accumulates capital is so important to Marx.
I consider it a paradox rather than a contradiction. But I actually think that Marx's ideas are more difficult to interpret than what you suggest here. Most of what Marx wrote about socialism presupposed that the processes through which the material prerequisites of socialism were developed were, in fact, capitalist processes. Marx clearly envisioned socialism as a stage of development under which the working class itself --not just a nominally "proletarian" state-- exercised political and economic control over the society. However, Marx didn't (and probably couldn't) clarify the point at which a capitalist stage had exhausted its usefulness in creating the material conditions under which a socialist stage was to begin. This was largely the source of conflict between the Bolscheviks and the Menscheviks. The Bolscheviks advocated state-centered capital accumulation as a means to create the material conditions under which socialism could be constructed. The Menscheviks argued that Russia had yet to undergo its capitalist stage of development and that it had to go through such a stage before the material conditions would be ripe for socialism. Both the Bolscheviks and the Menscheviks could claim the mantle of Marxism because both could point to different parts of Marx's analysis that would seem to corroborate each side's vision.
But, mind you, Lenin wholly recognized that state control of the economy was not synonomous with socialism. The early Bolscheviks understood that their most immediate objective was not the development of socialism but rather the creation of the material conditions under which socialism could ultimately be achieved. So I would hesitate before suggesting that Cuba is socialist simply on account of the fact that it is a state-centered economy. I would suggest that Cuba is still in the midst of the struggle to create the conditions under which socialism could be achieved. And I don't really think that Marx laid out a clear blueprint as to what the best method for creating those material conditions is. Whether we like it or not, the debate between the "Menscheviks" and the "Bolscheviks" lives one.
Oops, the last sentence should read "lives on," not "lives one."
Post a Comment