April 26, 2016

      I am participating this week in the XII Seminario de Relaciones Internacionales, sponsored by the Instituto Superior de Relaciones Internacionales "Raúl Roa García" (ISRI) in Havana.  ISRI is the university that is responsible for the education of Cuban diplomats.  My presentation will be on “US Decline, Global Crisis, and Popular Resistance: The unsustainability of US imperialist policies.”  I provide in this blog post a summary of the key ideas of the paper.

     With the concentration of industry in the United States in the last decades of the nineteenth century, US productivity exceeded the demand of the domestic market.  Responding to this situation, the capitalist class in the 1890s advocated a policy of involvement in the affairs of the nations of the world, in order to ensure access to the markets of other countries.  Its promoters call the proposed policy “imperialism.”

      The first expression of US imperialist policy was the military intervention in Cuba in 1898 and the military occupation of Cuba from 1898 to 1902.  From 1902 to the present, imperialism has been a continuous policy of US governments, with the constant intention of obtaining markets for US industrial and agricultural products and also obtaining sources of raw materials and cheap labor.  A variety of strategies have been used, including military interventions, coups d’état, political maneuvers, support of repressive military dictatorships, and interference in the internal affairs of nations.  The various strategies had the common objective of ensuring that the governments of the Third World adopted policies, laws, and commercial regulations that guaranteed US access.

      Imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century was a new policy, distinct from European colonialism, which was characterized by conquest, military force, and direct political control.  Although military force was a component of imperialism, the new imperialist policy sought a new form of domination characterized by economic, financial and ideological penetration, accompanied by recognition of political independence.  When the European colonial empires collapsed as a result of the anti-colonial movements formed by the colonized, the United States was prepared to insert itself in the place of the ex-colonial power, but in the context of a different structure of domination, to which the colonized peoples gave the name “neocolonialism.”  This process began in the second half of the nineteenth century, after the fall the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires in America; and it culminated after World War II, with the fall of the British, French, Belgian and Dutch colonial empires in Africa and Asia.  As a consequence of the implementation of imperialist policy, the United States became, during the period 1946 to 1967, the hegemonic power in a neocolonial world-system.  

     Although military power has been an important component of US neocolonialism, the United Stated developed control of its neocolonies primarily through ownership of productive and commercial enterprises as well as banks.  The neocolonial state was legally and formally independent, and it was responsible for containing anti-imperialist popular movements through a combination of repression and concessions.  The United States provided military aid, but the neocolonial state was responsible for social control.  With the national bourgeoisie subordinate to US corporations, and with the neocolonial government dependent on US aid and support, the United States was able to ensure that commercial regulations favored US interests in access to markets, raw materials, and cheap labor.

     US hegemony began to erode in 1968.  It began to lose its overwhelmingly dominant position in world production and commerce, especially with respect to Germany and Japan, as a result of its overemphasis on consumption and military expenditures.  At the same time, the world-system entered a long period of stagnation in profits, as a result of the fact that it had reached the geographical limits of the earth.  In response to this situation, the US power elite used the external debt of Third World governments to impose neoliberal policies, which eliminates even the most modest protections of national industry.  Neoliberalism increased profits of US corporations in the short term, but it undermined US neocolonialism, because it ignored economic interests and political agenda of the national bourgeoisie, which plays a necessary role in neocolonial domination.  By converting the national bourgeoisie into a mere agent of foreign capital, the neoliberal project undermined its capacity to lead the neocolonized nation with credibility, rendering it incapable of fulfilling the role of channeling popular demands and maintaining social control.  The discrediting of the national bourgeoisie gave rise to renewed popular movements in virtually all of the nations of the Third World, led by charismatic leaders with radical and revolutionary discourses, that have sought to cast aside the national bourgeoisies and their political representatives in favor of alternative popular parties that would defend the sovereignty of the nations and the social and economic rights of the peoples.  This process has been most advanced in Latin America, the backyard of the neocolonial hegemonic power.

     Thus the US directed neocolonial world-system is in decadence.  Moreover, from this point forward, US imperialist policies are no longer sustainable, as a consequence of two factors.  First, the US productive and commercial decline has continued, and the United States is increasingly losing the capacity to control the economies of the neocolonies.  Secondly, anti-imperialist movements have acquired such force that acceptance of US ownership and dictation of commercial regulations and relations is increasingly less possible politically.

      Although the United States continues to fall economically and commercially, it remains by far the strongest military power in the world, as a consequence of the fact that it has had a permanent war economy since World War II.  Thus the United States, increasingly lacking the economic capacity to pursue imperialist policies, will find it more and more necessary to obtain its goals through military means, establishing what Fidel Castro has called a “global military dictatorship.”

     Thus US imperialism and the neocolonial world-system are in decline, and it is not likely to endure.  We are in a time of transition to one of three possibilities: (1) a new stage in the world-system, a world-empire under US military control; (2) a different world-system, more just and democratic, characterized by solidarity rather than domination, and by mutually beneficial commerce rather than super-exploitation, a possibility established by Third World popular movements that have emerged in reaction to the imposition of the neoliberal project; and (3) the disintegration of the world system, characterized by chaos, regional dictatorships, and local fascist gangs, a possibility established by the irresponsible behavior of the global elite before the profound crisis that humanity confronts.

April 28, 2016
​
​     We have seen that US imperialism was developed as a policy that sought control of economies and markets of the world without seeking direct political and administrative control, as occurred with the European colonial empires.  US imperialism was a central force in the transition from a colonial to a neocolonial world-system.  It utilized a variety of strategies, including military interventions, but as it developed, its primary focus was on economic, financial and ideological penetration, with military intervention available as a constant threat, but applied only when necessary.  The neocolonial world-system reached its zenith in the period 1945 to 1967.  However, since 1968, the United States has suffered an erosion of its productive and commercial capacities, such that it can no longer maintain its hegemony through economic and commercial means, and it must increasingly rely upon military intervention and war.  Since 2001, the United States has been leading the global powers to a transition from the neocolonial world-system under US hegemony to a US-controlled world-empire, a global dictatorship that dominates by military rather than economic means (see “The unsustainability of US imperialism” 4/26/2016).

      A militarized world-empire would represent a return to a form of domination similar to the European colonial empires, in that it increasingly would violate in blatant forms the principle of the sovereignty of nations.  And it also would represent a new form of fascism, inasmuch as it would involve the attainment of economic goals by military means, and it increasingly would disrespect citizenship rights in all regions.
 
     Inasmuch as a global military dictatorship would necessarily involve emphasis on arms production and would lead to sustained conflicts in the world, it possibly could lead to total breakdown of the existing, but too limited, international efforts in response to common human problems, such as global warming, environmental deterioration, war, terrorism, disease, crime, and uncontrolled international migration.  It thus would increase the possibility for disintegration, fragmentation and chaos, with regional military dictatorships and local fascist gangs, and it also would increase the possibility for human extinction.

     Within the United States, the turn to global military dictatorship would deepen the historic contradiction between the claimed values of democracy and actual political practice.  And it would lead to a further erosion of the protection of social and economic rights of the people, a process that has been underway since 1980.

     Standing against the two possibilities of global fascism and chaos, there is the long-standing effort of the peoples and movements of the Third World to construct a just, democratic and sustainable world-system.  This process has attained its most advanced expression in Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is most fully represented by the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador as well as regional associations such as ALBA and CELAC.  The Third World quest for a more just and democratic world-system also is represented by the Non-Aligned Movement, which in the twenty-first century has retaken the radical Third World agenda of national liberation of the 1960s and 1970s.  The quest of the peoples of the world for a just, democratic and sustainable world-system represents that only reasonable option for humanity.  

      The people of the United States have an interest in learning from the examples of the Third World popular movements and developing a popular coalition that seeks to take power and govern in accordance with universal human values, the needs of the people and the interests of humanity.  Although such a revolutionary popular coalition confronts enormous obstacles, it would not be without precedent in the United States; to the contrary, revolutionary movements in defense of popular sectors have emerged at various times in the history of the United States, with its most recent expression being the period of 1955 to 1972.
     

Posted April 18, 2016

​     In the aftermath of the visit of US President Barack Obama to Cuba, the moderator of the discussion list of the Association of Black Sociologists, Rodney Coates, posted on the list a number of articles dealing with the issue of race in Cuba.  Coates is Professor of Global and Intercultural Studies and Director of Black World Studies at the Miami University of Ohio.

     One of the posted articles was “Sankofa Cuba: Racism and Revolution in the Afro-Cuban Experience” by Abdul Alkalimat.  The article was published in the Fall 2013 issue of The Black Activist.  

      As the article observes, “every society has a master narrative,” a prevailing consensus that selectively identifies and interprets important events in the history of the society, and that frames contemporary issues.  In the case of the United States, the master narrative has been shaped by the white power elite, and it is full of distortions and omissions.  Indeed, this is unavoidable, because the narrative functions to manipulate the people into support of policies that promote elite interests.  It proclaims the nation to be the most democratic in human history, and thus it must omit or minimize undemocratic components in US history.  Especially important in this regard is the omission of the fundamental truth that the US economic ascent was based on the aggressive acquisition of territory, the commercial connection to slavery in the Caribbean, the development of slavery as a system within its own borders, and the imperialist penetration of all regions of the planet.  Pretending to defend democracy throughout the world, the nation is in fact a global imperial power.

     In contrast, the dominant narrative in socialist Cuba has been created by a multiracial movement formed by professionals, workers, farmers, students and women, which took power from a political class that represented the interests of a subordinate national bourgeoisie, international capital, and US imperialism.  Once it took political power, the leadership of the popular movement took decisive steps in defense of the interest of the popular sectors, thus provoking the hostility powerful actors.  Its best defense against them was the unified support of the people, which required popular understanding of the necessity of the decisive steps as well as the unavoidable hostile reaction.  The Cuban Revolution has had an interest in forging a narrative that educates rather than manipulates the people, and thus it has developed a narrative that is grounded in an advanced integral philosophical historical social science, forged with the active participation of intellectuals and academics.

       Alkalimat describes the formation of autonomous Afro-Cuban political organizations from 1812 to 1912, a phenomenon that is recognized in the dominant Cuban narrative.  He also notes that from 1912 to 1959 autonomous black organization was not the pattern. Rather, there was significant Afro-Cuban leadership and participation in multiracial organizations, which included important organizations that were successful in mobilizing the people and in attaining popular support.  However, the article does not fully appreciate the significance of this experience for the Cuban interpretation of its struggle.

       In popular movements, there are competing strategies being proposed, with internal debates among the leadership concerning what strategies are going to be most effective.  Often, these debates are resolved by the success of some strategies.  This occurred with respect to the internal debates in the Cuban popular revolution concerning whether the guerrilla war in the countryside or strikes and sabotage in the cities would bring down the dictator.  The debate was settled by events.  The military advances by the rebel army in the countryside caused the dictator to flee the country, even though it is of course recognized that the contributions and sacrifices of the urban underground must be appreciated and honored. 

     Something like this occurred with respect to the issue of autonomous black organizations.  The revolution triumphed with multiracial organizations that represented various popular sectors, who were organized according to occupation or function (in the rebel army and in organizations formed by urban professionals, urban workers, agricultural workers, and students) rather than by race or color.  This experience led to the interpretation that multiracial popular organization is ultimately the necessary strategy for prevailing against powerful forces, accompanied by recognition that separate black organizations in some cases constituted a progressive dynamic that in a particular historical moment contributed to the advance of the Cuban project of national liberation.  

     This interpretation shaped the organization of the triumphant revolution, as it faced powerful counterrevolutionary forces.  The people were organized as urban workers (including professionals), agricultural workers, small farmers, students, women and neighborhoods; but not according to race or color.  The dominant revolutionary narrative maintained that to organize the people according to race or color would ignore the lessons learned in the long popular struggle, and it would undermine the necessary unity of the people.  The revolutionary narrative was so overwhelming and so compelling that the renewed formation of separate black political organizations had very few advocates among Afro-Cubans following the triumph of the revolution.

        In the Cuban popular revolutionary struggle of 1868 to the present, something significant occurred, namely, the Cuban peoples became a single people.  Whether African or European blood flowed in their veins, all were actors in an historically and universally significant social process that dislodged from power those who were indifferent to the human needs of the people and who violated the dignity and sovereignty of the nation.  Cubans became, above all, Cuban, determined to defend at any price what they had sacrificed to attain.

       The contrasts of the Cuban experience with the United States are striking.  In reflecting on the contrasts, we ought to perhaps begin with the position of white Cubans, whose historic position was fundamentally different from that of whites in the United States.  Whites in the United States formed a settler society, and the great majority of whites economically benefitted, at least indirectly, from conquest, slavery, and the imperialist penetration of other lands.  But in Cuba, only the national bourgeoisie benefitted from neocolonial economic structures.  The white petit bourgeoisie and white workers and farmers found that the colonial and neocolonial situations restricted possibilities for the protection of their fundamental social and economic rights.  The great majority of Cuban whites, like Cuban blacks, had an economic interest in bringing colonialism and neocolonialism to an end.  Some members of the white middle class were confused by the ideological distortions; they cast their lot with the national bourgeoisie, allied with neocolonialism and international capital.  Some would become infamous as counterrevolutionaries in Miami, greatly influencing the US image of the triumphant Cuban Revolution.  But the colonial and neocolonial conditions of Cuba created something not seen in the United States, namely, a committed and informed radical petit bourgeoisie, which played an important role in leading a multiracial popular revolution against the (white controlled) neocolonial republic. In the United States during the period 1955 to 1972, white allies of the African-American movement turned out to be unreliable; in Cuba, by contrast, white students, professionals, workers and peasants became committed, reliable and even heroic allies of Afro-Cubans.  

    In the black experience in the United States, white racism is always present, either in a blatant or subtle form.  On the basis of this experience, one could look at Cuba with a model of racism, seeing racial inequality and white prejudice.  As with any social scientific model, there is an element of truth in this, and one can see signs of white prejudice and racial inequality, although much less than previously, and much less than in other nations.  But models shape what we see, and they can sometimes cause us to overlook profound truths.  In the black power period of 1966 to 1972 in the United States, black nationalist intellectuals formulated a colonial model, which sees racism as one dimension of colonial and neocolonial structures of domination, characterized by white control of the political, economic and cultural institutions of the communities and nations of the colonized.  The colonial model provides a more multidimensional and global vision of race relations in the United States and the neocolonial situation of Third World nations.  Seen from this colonial perspective, the Cuban Revolution, arriving to power through multiracial organization, and the African-American movement are allies in a common struggle.  Indeed, all of the colonized peoples of the world, including Latin Americans of various colors as well as the people of Ireland, are allies in a common anti-colonial struggle, and they all have formed movements that seek a more just, democratic and sustainable world. 

      The United States government discerns that revolutionary Cuba is a dangerous example and a threat to the neocolonial world-system.  It seeks to undermine the Cuban Revolution with various strategies, including seeking to discredit it with a model of white racism.  The white racist model is a useful tool for the declining hegemonic neocolonial power, for it represents white liberal reformism, as against the revolutionary transformation of fundamental structures of the European-dominated neocolonial world-system, which provides sustenance for racism in its various forms. 

​Key words:  race, Cuba, racism, colonialism, neocolonialism, Black Nationalism, colonial model, political organization

Posted April 19, 2016

     Socialist Cuba has many friends in the world, but it also has powerful enemies.  One of the strategies of Cuba’s enemies is to try to discredit Cuba with claims that the revolution denies the rights of Afro-Cubans or continues to be a racist or white-dominated society.  It is hard for me to imagine that such a campaign could sow division between blacks and whites in Cuba, because Cubans understand and appreciate the full commitment of the revolution to the full rights of Afro-Cubans, African-Americans, and the peoples and nations of Africa.  But it seems to me that the campaign is having some success in sowing doubts about the Cuban Revolution among African-Americans in the United States, who of course are not intimately familiar with the Cuban situation, and who may have a tendency to look at Cuba from the lens of their experiences in the United States and the model of white racism (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016).

      The discrediting campaign focuses on two issues.  The first is that of independent black agency in the form of separate black institutions. This issue is not debated in Cuba.  It was debated at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, as Abdul Alkalimat observes (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016).  But it is by now a resolved issue, because the Cuban popular revolution accomplished the taking of power through a strategy of multiracial organizations (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016).  But one of the strengths of the Cuban Revolution is its ability to listen to the voices of the people.  Accordingly, if this issue were to reemerge in the breast of the people, or of Afro-Cubans, the revolution would certainly seek to address it.  It would do so in a form that would ensure the unity of the people, for it is widely believed in Cuba that the unity of the people is necessary for the continued survival of the revolution.

     The second issue of the discrediting campaign is that of racial inequality, both income inequality and inequality in political power.  In Cuba today, it is well-understood that socialism is a process, and its goals cannot be fully attained overnight.  And there are some goals that are still not attained, fifty-seven years after the triumph of the revolution.  No one in Cuba thinks that socialist Cuba is, or can be, heaven on earth.

      There can be no reasonable doubt that the Cuban Revolution has taken decisive steps in support of the rights of Afro-Cubans.  The education of each Cuban child proceeds on basis of equal funding for all, regardless of race, class or gender; regardless of which urban neighborhood the child lives in; or whether he or she lives in the city or the country.  The historic invidious distinction between private and public education was abolished when the revolutionary government nationalized the Catholic schools, overwhelmingly white upper and middle class, and incorporated them into the public school system. Moreover, the difference that exists in the United States between poorly funded central city schools and suburban schools with higher tax bases does not exist in socialist Cuba.  I repeat, the Cuban revolution invests the same amount in the education of every Cuban child, from pre-school day care center to university graduate programs.  In addition, its system of education at the higher levels is integrally connected to structures of employment, so that as young Cubans earn diplomas and degrees, they can proceed to translate their education into professions and occupations.  And since 1959, there has been a full-fledged campaign calling upon employment without racial or gender discrimination.  No one thinks that old prejudices have completely disappeared, so this may not be fully realized in practice.  But to the extent that discrimination occurs, it is not systemic. 

     With respect to home ownership, the revolution nationalized privately-owned income-generating buildings and converted renters into property owners, allowing payments for the property at low prices and low rates of interest and with favorable terms.  Today, more than 90% of Cubans are home owners.  Some enemies of the revolution have tried to make an issue of the fact that, until recently, Cubans were prohibited from buying and selling property, omitting that most Cubans were homeowners as a result of a home distribution program, and the program was not undertaken with the intention that the beneficiaries sell the properties, thus facilitating the accumulation of property by a few.

      With respect to political power, the entire country is organized into voting districts, and the people nominate and elect candidates for the municipal assemblies, which in turn elect the deputies of the national assembly, which elects the executive branch.  The people also are organized in mass organizations of urban workers and professionals, agricultural workers, students, women and neighborhoods, the leadership of which is elected by the people.  To be sure, there is no black caucusing in this process.  Blacks, whites and mixed-race all participate with one another in this overlapping process of popular organization.  The mass organizations were organized on a multiracial basis in the 1960s, as a result of the overwhelming popular sentiment that this is the most effective strategy for empowering the people.

        All of these decisive revolutionary measures were “color blind.”  They were undertaken to benefit the people, without consideration of the race or color of the beneficiaries.  They clearly benefitted Afro-Cubans more than whites, since at the time of the triumph of the revolution, blacks were disproportionately represented among the poor, the marginally employed, the illiterate and the powerless.

      Fifty-seven years later, the success of this emancipatory educational-economic-political program is clear.  Exactly how successful is hard to measure, in part because racial classification is complex in Cuba, as a result of a high level of biological and cultural mixing.  But some have noted that the revolution perhaps has been more successful with respect to women than with respect to blacks.  As a result, there is beginning to emerge a discussion of the issue of racial inequality.  It may lead to an analysis of the reasons why the approach has not been more successful, and the identification of steps that should be taken to improve the situation.  Such analysis could possibly include reflection on appropriate pedagogical strategies for Afro-Cuban children and youth, perhaps giving even more emphasis to the role of Afro-Cubans in the revolutionary struggles and greater emphasis to African history and culture.  

        But such discussion of racial inequality has not attained a high priority among the Cuban people.  They are more concerned with bread and butter issues, and they do not tend to see these issues in racial terms.  Certain adjustment policies since the collapse of the Soviet Union have created more racial inequality, but it is also the case that they have created more inequality across the board, and that is how Cubans tend to perceive the problem.  Cubans speak of the need to ensure that the state continues to act decisively to protect the social and economic rights of all, and not permit that anyone be abandoned to his or her fate, as occurs in capitalist societies.  My sense is that any social program that supports blacks in need, but excludes whites equally in need, would be perceived in Cuba as unfair, and as therefore undermining the legitimacy of the revolution.

     The survival of the Cuban Revolution is in no sense guaranteed.  It continues to be under attack by powerful forces, including the Obama administration, which is undertaking a strategy of undermining the Cuban Revolution by creating a Cuban middle class with an interest in political change (see “Obama seeks to expand Cuban middle class” 3/24/2016).  The Obama administration also is attacking, using “soft power” imperialist strategies, Latin American revolutionary governments that have come to power in recent years and that have proclaimed “socialism for the twenty-first century” (see various posts in the category Venezuela and the new imperialist strategy).

     The social movements of the various peoples of the United States should be in solidarity with socialist Cuba and with progressive and socialist governments of Latin America and in opposition to US imperialist policies, as an important dimension of a struggle to create of a more just, democratic and sustainable world.  It seems to me that our solidarity could be more effective if, instead of focusing on the imperfections of these revolutions in the South, we were to seek to learn from them, appreciating that the peoples of Latin America are doing something that we in the United States have never been able to do, in that they have taken political power from the elite and have formed governments committed to the protection of the rights and needs of the people.  Inspired by their example, perhaps we could envision a popular coalition in the United States that takes political power and that adopts decisive steps in defense of our peoples, who have been exploited and abused in different ways, but whose dehumanization, in one form or another, is a generalized phenomenon.


Key words: race, Cuba, racism, racial inequality, socialism, imperialism

     Among the articles posted on the list of the Association of Black Sociologists in the aftermath of the visit of President Obama to Cuba was “Race and Sex in Cuba” by Paul D’Amato.  The article was published in the International Socialist Review in 2007; D’Amato is the Editor of the Review.  

     D’Amato maintains that the achievements of the Cuban Revolution are limited.  The Cuban Revolution, he maintains, has achieved national independence, but it is not a socialist revolution, inasmuch as its economic system is based on the exploitation of wage labor. Having not liberated the working class, Cuba is incapable of attaining full liberation with respect to race and gender, he maintains.

      Beyond noting that nationalization is not identical with socialism, D’Amato does not, in this article, explain the characteristics of a system that has eliminated the exploitation of the worker.  He notes that societies that have called themselves socialist are not in reality socialist, and he refers specifically in this regard to the former Soviet Union and the former nations of the socialist bloc of Eastern Europe as well as China and Cuba.  D’Amato maintains, moreover, that Marxism should not be criticized on the grounds that various forms of oppression continue to exist in socialist societies, inasmuch as the self-proclaimed socialist nations are not truly socialist.        

     D’Amato represents a tendency in European and US Marxism, in which there is a fixed idea of the meaning of socialism, on the basis of which the various socialist projects of the world are found lacking. Such a perspective appeared to receive empirical support with the collapse of “real socialism” in Eastern Europe.  But the recent triumph of self-designated socialist revolutions in Latin America provides empirical basis for a reformulation of the meaning and characteristics of socialism.  In this situation, I maintain that all of us who carry the banner of socialism should permit the triumphant revolutions calling themselves socialist to define in practice the characteristics of socialism.  These include the triumphant revolutions in Russia (1917), Vietnam (1945), China (1949), Cuba (1959), Chile (1970), Venezuela (1998), Bolivia (2006), and Ecuador (2007).

      Studying the characteristics of these socialist projects, we can discern that they all involved the taking of political power by an alternative political formation led by a charismatic leader and supported by various popular sectors.  In these cases, the working class was not in the majority, and it was not in the vanguard.  The leaders in the revolutionary processes came overwhelmingly from the radical wing of the petty bourgeoisie; and the popular sectors included peasants, students, workers and women.  Once in power, the triumphant revolutions confronted enormous challenges with respect to the production and distribution of necessary goods and services.  Of necessity, their orientation was not so much toward the emancipation of the worker but the marshalling of labor to provide for the needs of the people.  They relied heavily on nationalization, but they sanctioned various forms of property in addition to state property, including cooperatives, small scale private property, and joint ventures with foreign capital.  They all believed that the state should be the author of a national development project and that the state should be a major actor in the economy.

      As socialism evolved in practice, it assumed characteristics that were different from what was projected by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.  But the formulators of classic Marxism-Leninism understood that their theoretical formulations were tied to observations of particular conditions and social movements, and that revolutionary theory would continue to evolve, connected to practice.  Lenin, confronting immense challenges with respect to providing for the needs of the people in the aftermath of the Civil War, adopted out of necessity the New Economic Policy, which could be interpreted as violating some of the theoretical tenets of Marxism.  Moreover, observing the failure of the proletarian revolution in the West to triumph, and seeing as well the anti-imperialism of the oppressed nations, Lenin discerned that the vanguard of the socialist revolution would move from the Western European working class to the oppressed peoples of the East, which we today call the Third World or the South.

     Marxism-Leninism should be understood as an evolving theoretical project, linked to practice.  It has evolved since the Lenin’s time in the form of revolutions of a dual character in the colonized regions of the world, characterized by a quest, on the one hand, for national liberation from European colonial domination, and on the other hand, for social liberation from class exploitation and related forms of social oppression.  Paradigmatic charismatic leaders that have formulated the evolving theory of Marxism-Leninism include Ho, Mao, Fidel and Chávez.  And it is they who define the characteristics of socialism, an authority that they possess because of their demonstrated capacity to mobilize their own peoples in defense of the national and social liberation that their peoples seek.  The characteristics of socialism cannot possibly be defined by those who are removed from the evolving global popular revolution.

      The current epoch is characterized by a structural and terminal crisis of the world-system and by a turn of the global elite to neoliberalism.  And it is characterized by anti-neoliberal protests and popular movements and revolutions in all regions of the planet, attaining its most advanced expression in Latin America.  To understand the meaning of socialism for our time, we must appreciate that theory is tied to practice, and that the peoples and movements of the Third World have taken the role of the vanguard in revolutionary practice.  We must seek to understand Third World movements and the insights of their charismatic leaders, just as Marx sought to understand human history and modern capitalism from the vantage point of the Western European worker, who constituted the vanguard of revolutionary practice in Marx’s time. 

     In tomorrow’s post, we will discuss D’Amato’s observations concerning race in Cuba.


Key words:  socialism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, theory, practice, Third World

Posted April 21, 2016

​      Paul D’Amato, Editor of the International Socialist Review, in a 2007 article on “Race and Sex in Cuba,” maintains that Cuba does not represent true socialism (see “Who defines socialism?” 4/20/2016).  In accordance with this point of view, he focuses on the imperfections of Cuban society.

     D’Amato presents a portrait of a Cuba as far whiter and far more racist than the Cuba that I know.  He cites the 1981 Cuban census, indicating that the nation at that time was 66% white, 22% mestizo, and 12% black.  These figures are so inconsistent with visual scrutiny that one would think that there was an error, that the figures for whites and mulattos had been inverted.  Regardless of the figures, there is also the fact of the pervasive influence of African culture on the island, as is indicated by the significant extent to which persons of all colors indulge, somewhat superficially, in African religious practices; and by an historical consciousness that identifies slave rebellions (as well as indigenous resistance to the Spanish conquest) as precursors to a revolutionary process that was launched in 1868 when a slaveholder freed his slaves and called upon them to take up arms with him in opposition to Spanish colonialism.  I recall that on one occasion a Cuban leader, who looked more or less white, introduced his nation to my students, who were white, by referring to Cuba as an African-American nation. 

     Even more surprising was a 1995 study of three Havana neighborhoods, cited by D’Amato, that found racist attitudes among whites: 58% believed blacks to be less intelligent; and 68% were opposed to interracial marriage.  I have never heard anyone express such attitudes, and they are completely inconsistent with the prevailing consciousness among the people.  When on rare occasions people made comments that could be interpreted as prejudiced, they were casual cultural and social observations that were not offered as a justification for inequality or as implying that social investments that benefit Afro-Cubans should be eliminated.  In Cuba, it is assumed that the state has a moral obligation to act decisively to protect the social and economic rights of all, regardless of race or color. 

      In the United States, whites repeatedly are saying that their opinions on the role of government and on social issues have nothing to do with race, a denial that comes across as a ploy, conscience or not, for racism in a subtle form.  Cubans, however, truly do not think in racial terms, except as a skin color that is useful for descriptive purposes, similar to height or weight.  Currently there is, for example, public discussion of a lack of discipline at the workplace as well as a lack of revolutionary consciousness and work ethic among some youth.  These issues are not seen in terms of race.  They are understood as issues of popular culture, involving the daily habits and practices of people of all colors, and of the need for revolutionary transformation of certain characteristics of popular culture.

     D’Amato maintains that the Cuban Revolution argues that the issue of race has been completely resolved.  This is not the case.  The 1962 Second Declaration of Havana, which he cites in support of this claim, asserted that racial and gender discrimination in Cuba have been abolished.  The document did not intend to assert that all issues of race and gender had been fully resolved.  Indeed, it would have been absurd to maintain that a declaration could eliminate problems that were centuries in the making.  Let us recall the context of the time.  In the United States, the battles of Birmingham and Selma as well as the rebellions of Watts and Newark lay ahead, and the issue of gender equality was not included in public discourse.  In a world in conflict over these issues, Cuba was proclaiming its political will to fully implement civil, political, social and economic rights for all, regardless of race or gender.  The 1962 Declaration of Havana was not a propaganda ploy or a clever maneuver by a white leadership to bury reflection on the problem of race, as D’Amato implies.  The Declaration was a clear proclamation of commitment to fundamental principles, nothing more and nothing less, an affirmation enthusiastically and proudly supported by the people of all colors.  To treat it otherwise is to indulge in cynicism and to not see the simplicity and decency of the Cuban people; it is to attribute to them a capacity for cynical political manipulation that they do not possess.

    The concepts of institutional discrimination, symbolic racism and laissez-faire racism were developed in the United States in the post-1965 period, after the attainment of significant gains with respect to civil and political rights.  These concepts reflect the US racial context. White society had made concessions, but the great majority of whites did not arrive to understand and appreciate the African-American perspective on the American experience, the meaning of democracy, or the global structures of white domination.  As a result, most whites, although moving away from blatant forms of racism, continued to be racist in subtler ways, as was reflected in the unequivocal rejection by white society of black demands for decisive state action to protect the social and economic rights of all US citizens and for a more democratic foreign policy.  And it is reflected in the fact that the economic inequalities between blacks and whites are roughly the same today as they were prior to the civil rights gains of the 1960s.  But concepts formed in the US context should not be applied to Cuba, which in the same post-1960s era had a fundamentally different experience with respect to race.  

     In revolutionary Cuba, there was full commitment by the government and the people for the protection of the civil, political, social and economic rights of all; and blacks, mulattos and whites were participating together in the development of a national anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and anti-racist project.  No one thought that the issues of race were fully resolved, and no one used a false claim to this effect as a pretext for rejecting separate black organizations, as D’Amato claims.  Separate black organizations were rejected as a strategy because the Cuban experience of struggle had shown that interracial organizations were more effective, inasmuch as interracial organizations, and not separate black organizations, had brought down the dictator and had put power in the hands of the people (see “Black political organizations in Cuba” 4/18/2016); because the separate black organizations that existed at the time of the triumph of the revolution were reactionary rather than progressive, and they did not participate in the overthrow of the dictator; because it seemed unnecessary to have black organizations, given full black participation in the popular organizations and popular power, and given that the revolution already possessed the political will to fully implement the rights of blacks; and because there was concern that separate black organizations would undermine the unity of the people, especially in a context in which powerful external enemies were prepared to exploit any possible division to bring the Cuban Revolution down.

      D’Amato argues that, with hindsight, the “color-blind” approach of the revolution and its emphasis on the unity of the people were erroneous, because problems of race still exist.  But such a claim is reasonable only if it were to be expected that a revolution after fifty years ought to have fully resolved a complex economic and cultural problem that had been centuries in the making.  The Cuban Revolution should be credited for its significant reductions in racial inequality with respect to income, education, and political empowerment.  Complete racial equality has not been attained, and this invites reflection on how a level of racial inequality could persist in the context of a society that is fully committed to the elimination of racial discrimination.  Such reflection is indeed beginning today, although other issues have a higher priority among the people, such as the satisfaction of material needs and the new imperialist strategy of the United States to finally bring the Cuban Revolution to an end.

     D’Amato’s highly selective discussion of race is rooted in his belief that Cuba is not socialist and that the Cuban Revolution does not have the characteristics that a socialist revolution ought to have.  But what should a socialist revolution in a neocolonized underdeveloped Caribbean nation look like?  This will be the subject of our next post.


Key words: race, Cuba, racism, prejudice, racial inequality, socialism

Posted April 22, 2016

     In “Race and Sex in Cuba,” published in the International Socialist Review in 2007, Paul D’Amato maintains that the Cuban revolution is a nationalist revolution but not a socialist revolution.  He finds that racial and gender oppression continues in Cuba, a consequence of the fact that it is not a truly socialist revolution (see “Who defines socialism?” 4/20/2016; “Racial inequality in Cuba” 4/21/2016).

      Imperfect though it is when examined from the viewpoint of classic European socialism, the triumphant Cuban Revolution nonetheless would capture the imagination of the colonized peoples of the world, who see in it a persistent and heroic spirit of independence.  It does not look like anything like the classic Marxist projection.  It would be lead not by a working class vanguard, but by the son of a Spanish immigrant landholder who was educated in Catholic schools; and who believed profoundly in the vision of a free Cuba articulated by the Cuban revolutionary José Martí, a well-read and cultured political exile who had not read Marx.  Fidel read on his own the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, appreciating their insights, but freely appropriating in a form adapted to the Cuban neocolonial situation.  And the Cuban Revolution also would be led by a fiercely committed medical doctor from Argentina, whose sojourn of Latin American lands had taught him of the common suffering and necessary political unity of the peoples who formed La Patria Grande of Bolívar, and whose distrust of imperialist governments was as deep as his love for the suffering people.  The Cuban Revolution would be formed by a humble people, whose very humility compelled them to lift up Fidel and Che, endowing them with a teaching authority surpassing even that of Lenin and Mao, and not known to humanity since Mohammed.  And the Cuban Revolution would come to power, not through the patient educating and organizing practices of the Cuban communist party, but in an unconventional guerrilla war that moved from the country to the city, led by a lawyer and a doctor who were connected, in mind and soul, to the hopes and sufferings of the people.

     Once in power, the Cuban revolutionary leadership took decisive steps in defense of the people and the nation and against the interests of the national bourgeoisie and foreign corporations.  It nationalized agricultural and industrial properties; and it adopted measures that raised workers’ wages and reduced the costs of housing and utilities. It declared the socialist character of the revolution two years after its triumph, as it prepared for a US-backed invasion by a force formed by counterrevolutionaries who had left the country, including members of the national bourgeoisie, the military forces of the deposed dictator, and the reactionary wing of the middle class.  The revolutionary leadership called upon the people to defend with arms their socialist revolution, and the people did so; the counterrevolutionary invasion force surrendered en masse in seventy-two hours.

     The Cuban revolutionary people, now emancipated, would express all of the characteristics that were uniquely theirs.  They would be proud of their coming together as blacks, whites and mulattos in the casting aside of old racial prejudices; but with awareness of the status designations that reign in the world, they would describe themselves as lighter than they actually are.  They would affirm equality between the sexes, but they would cling to traditional gender roles.  They would be inclined to be respectful toward all, but would find homosexuality difficult to understand.  They would be committed to science, and they would participate in the creation of the finest medical system in the world; yet they would be persistent in believing that medical cures require the participation of African saints.  They would possess a tremendous spirit of internationalism and international solidarity; yet they would wave their own Cuban flag with great patriotism, and they would listen to their national anthem with reverence.  They would create symphony orchestras that would play the works of the European masters; but they would spontaneously sing and dance to their own music, in tune with their vibrant sexuality and African rhythms.  They would be committed to work and study, but equally committed to family obligations and to the need for regular celebratory festivities rooted in the family and family-like friendships.  Cuban women would take the lead in forging the new society, claiming for themselves positions in science, education, health, and political leadership; but these same women would teach their sons to be macho, teach their daughters to dress in sexually provocative ways, play verbal sexual games with men, and insist that the management of the home remains their particular domain.  

      They are a modest people, not at all arrogant.  They are aware that they are a poor people of a small nation, and that they have imperfections.  But they are a proud people.  Informed of global dynamics, they are aware that their modest achievements have universal human significance.  They see that the colonized peoples of the world are inspired by their achievements, and they are ready to provide support, when asked.  They hope that the powerful nations of the North will see their good qualities and will trade with them as equals, so that they can continue to develop.  They offer their modest example to the world, with love and solidarity, and with hope for the future of humanity.  They see themselves as participating in a step-by-step process in which the movements formed by humanity are constructing a just, democratic and sustainable world, saving humanity from imminent self-destruction.  They have absolutely no doubt that the revolution they are forging is both a nationalist and a socialist revolution.

      Although the Cuban Revolution does not look like anything that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky envisioned, it was in a sense foreseen by the great masters.  For they intuitively sensed that the socialist revolution would be forged in practice by the people, and that it would be led by exceptional leaders who were sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of their own people, and who would lead them to new levels of human achievement, with the people moving in their own way, in accordance with their own rhythm and unique characteristics.

       I have come to appreciate the Cuban Revolution as a gift to the world.  Some would say that it is a gift from God, seeking to instruct us in the way, the truth and the light; for like the prophets Moses and Amos, it denounces the pretensions of the global powers, and it defends the rights of the poor.  But it fulfills the prophetic role in an historical epoch in which the peoples of the world have demonstrated their capacity to form movements in their defense, precisely at a time when such movements are necessary to save humanity.  The Cuban Revolution reveals the word of God not by being perfect, for it is full of human imperfections; but in its best sons and daughters, who today, fifty-seven years after its triumph, form an educated and committed vanguard, exemplifying the essential dignity of the human species.

     We who form the peoples of the North can reject the Cuban Revolution as not consistent with a classic vision of Marxism.  We can focus on its imperfections, discrediting it, in service of those powerful forces that seek to destroy this dangerous example and to preserve their privileges in the world-system, unaware that the world-system itself is unsustainable.  Or we can take a different path.  We can appreciate it, learn from it, and permit ourselves to be inspired by it, seeking to develop in our own nations our own versions of it, so that we can participate in what has become a great social movement formed by humanity in defense of itself.


Key words:  Cuba, race, gender, socialism, revolution