In times of crisis and uncertainty, the people lose faith in established mainstream political institutions, and they simultaneously turn to both the Right and the Left.  This occurred, for example, in Europe following the First World War.

     The emergence of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as significant contenders for the nominations of the Republican and Democratic parties is a sign that US voters are increasingly disenchanted with the two traditional political parties and with mainstream political institutions, inasmuch as both Trump and Sanders are marginal members of their respective parties, and both adopt a discourse more to the Right and to the Left of their parties.

     The growing lack of faith in mainstream politics indicates that the time may be ripe for a third party of the Left in the United States, as has occurred in Latin America, where new parties of the Left have been formed since 1995 and have captured control of governments in a number of nations, utilizing electoral procedures of representative democracy.  The new parties reacted to and took advantage of the cooperation of national elites and their political pawns in the imposition of the neoliberal project by the global powers.

      The neoliberal turn of global elites in 1980 occurred as a result of the structural crisis of the world-system, the first signs of which emerged during the 1970s.  The crisis has been caused principally by the fact that the world-system has overreached its geographical and ecological limits.  Since the sixteenth century, the world-system expanded through the conquest and domination of new lands and peoples, thus incorporating more natural resources, additional reserves of cheap labor, and new markets.  But this mechanism for productive and commercial expansion has been eroded since the middle of the twentieth century, when the system reached the geographical limits of the earth.  New technologies can increase productivity on existing land, and additional natural recourses can be discovered, but these possibilities do not provide for the sufficient growth of the system (see various posts in the section on the crisis of the world system).

      But the effort by global elites to increase levels of exploitation through the imposition of neoliberal policies does not address the source of the crisis.  Moreover, the neoliberal project has provoked popular rejection in both peripheral and core zones during the last twenty years, thus creating a situation in which the world-system is not only ecologically but also politically unsustainable.

     Coinciding with the structural crisis of the world-system, the United States has entered a period of productive, commercial and financial decline relative to other core powers.  Excessive military expenditures, rampant consumerism, insufficient investment in manufacturing, and uncontrolled financial speculation have contributed to its decline since the early 1970s.  The decline of hegemonic core powers following their ascent to hegemonic dominance is a normal phenomenon.  But the coincidence of the structural crisis of the world-system with the decline of the hegemonic core power, provoking its turn to unilateral neo-fascist militarism, has accelerated a global turn to chaos.  

     Political discourse in the United States lacks the capacity to explain the sources of the crisis of the world-system and the relative decline of the nation.  So anxiety grows among the people.  They increasingly are losing faith in mainstream political institutions.  They are turning more and more to unconventional approaches, which in the case of the presidential primaries are represented by the candidacies of Trump and Sanders.  

     But neither Trump nor Sanders points to the necessary road.  Trump’s discourse taps into fear and ignorance, and its ultimate logic would be a fascist order that would be far from democracy and social justice.  Sanders heads in the right direction, but in a far too limited form.  He has no discourse to explain the world systemic crises and the national decline nor to formulate a comprehensive national project that seeks democracy and social justice on a global scale.  Furthermore, what is needed at this moment is not a presidential candidate representing one of the two established parties, but an alternative political party.  

     The success that Sanders has had with his superficial discourse of the Left does indicate, however, that the people may be ready to follow the lead of an alternative political party of the Left that seeks to take power and govern in the name of the people.  That is to say, the people in the United States may be prepared for revolution, which would be the fourth stage in the American Revolution, the first three being the periods of 1763-1789 (establishing political independence), 1829-1876 (abolishing slavery), and 1955-72 (establishing fundamental civil and political rights for minorities and women).

      If we follow the example of successful revolutions in the world of the past 100 years, a revolutionary party of the people of the United States would need an effective manifesto and platform.  The manifesto would explain global historical dynamics, so that the people would be able to understand the crisis of the world-system and the national decline as well as the necessary constructive responses by the nation.  The platform, on the other hand, would formulate specific proposals that would address the concrete needs of the people.

      Whereas revolutions in other lands often have resulted in new constitutions, constitutional amendments would be more appropriate in the case of the United States.  More than 200 years of constitutional continuity is a significant achievement, and it should not be cast aside.  Moreover, the road of constitutional amendment is an historic legacy of the three earlier revolutionary stages of the US popular movement, resulting in the Bill of Rights; the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments; and the proposal in the 1970s for a constitutional amendment affirming equal citizenship rights for women.  In the present historic moment, the revolutionary party should propose four constitutional amendments affirming: (1) that women have full constitutional rights; (2) that democratic rights include social and economic rights, such as education, health care, nutrition, housing, and a minimum standard of living; (3) that the foreign policy of the nation must respect the full sovereignty of all nations; and (4) that the government has the right and the duty to take measures necessary for the ecological balance of the earth.

      Concrete platform proposals could include: reduction of taxes for the middle and working classes and a tax increase on corporations and the wealthy; the replacement of student loans with direct grants and the forgiveness of existing student debt; infrastructural investment to provide for needs in housing and urban public transportation and to provide employment; a minimum-wage increase; structures of community control to facilitate crime prevention, prevent police violence, and increase citizen participation; a domestic partnership law to ensure fairness for gay couples living together; expansion of structures supporting adoption and single-parenthood as alternatives to abortion, while affirming the principle of reproductive rights and the legality of abortion; universal social programs that provide support for persons in need, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender; an anti-imperialist foreign policy of North-South cooperation, with constructive proposals with respect to sovereign nations that have been demonized, such as Venezuela and Iran; cooperation with other nations in order to reduce illegal immigration, trafficking in human persons, and illegal drug trafficking; reduction of expenditures on high-technology military weapons, combined with the increasing use of the armed forces for emergency relief and construction projects throughout the world; expansion of government support for public television; and campaign finance reform, with the goal of eliminating the dependency of political candidates on the contributions of the wealthy.

      The revolutionary party should have the long-range goal of seeking to capture the presidency and the Congress in a period of twenty-five years, cultivating allies in the judiciary and the military during this period.  Its focus initially should be on the education and organization of the people, rather than on the election of candidates.  However, in the short-term, candidates could be nominated in Congressional districts with favorable demographic characteristics, such as districts with high percentages of blacks, Latinos or Native Americans.  Elected members of the Congress in these demographically favorable districts could play an important role in the education of the people throughout the nation with respect to the perspective, values, and proposals of the revolutionary party.

      The revolutionary party should be launched when there is significant support for the new political party from prominent public intellectuals and personalities, including political leaders affiliated with the Democratic Party who are prepared to cast their lot with the new party, in consideration of the challenges that the nation and humanity confront in the present historic moment.


Key words:  Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, revolution, revolutionary party

     If you don’t know what democracy means, you do not have the moral authority to lecture others on how to practice it.  Yet US Secretary of State John Kerry, representing the greatest imperial power in human history, arrived at the ceremony for the re-opening of the US Embassy in Cuba to celebrate the beginning of a new era in US-Cuban relations and to inform the Cuban people concerning US hopes for more democracy in Cuba.  To be sure, reflecting the new Obama policy toward Cuba, his tone was respectful toward the Cuban government, and he did not formulate US expectations as conditions for the normalization of relations.  He even at one point observed that the future of Cuba is for Cubans to decide, and his speech was at times moving in its eloquent plea for the development of a positive and construction relation between the two nations and peoples.  Nevertheless, his speech contained false premises with respect to Cuba and the meaning of democracy, false premises that are common in US political culture, which has been shaped by the enormous power of the imperial nation.  The United States of America believes that it knows best concerning what the nations and peoples of the world ought to do to improve their lives.  This is the arrogance that comes with power.

      Kerry believes that the people of Cuba would be better served with a genuine democracy, where they can express ideas and choose leaders.  With this formulation, he dismisses the Cuban structure for popular participation in mass organizations of workers, farmers, women, students and neighborhood, in which the people fully express their opinions on any subject of concern, and which have constitutionally-mandated structures of communication with the national legislature, the highest formal political authority in the nation.  He seems to not reflect on the fact that such a structure for popular participation scarcely exists in the United States.  

      In expressing desire that Cubans choose their leaders, Kerry seems less than well-informed concerning the Cuban political structure of popular power that guides the decision-making process.  Delegates are elected by the people in voting districts of 1000-1500, with competing candidates but without the participation of electoral parties and without the need for political campaigns and campaign financing (see “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context”.  This structure ensures that elected delegates will not be more responsive to political parties and campaign contributors than to their obligations to the people and the nation.  Kerry seems oblivious to the fact that the Cuban political system has a high degree of legitimacy in Cuba, whereas the structures of representative democracy in the nations of the North are experiencing a legitimation crisis.

     Kerry urges the Cuban government to make it easier for Cubans to establish their own businesses.  Kerry seems to miss the fact that, with respect to this theme, there is a true opportunity for US-Cuban dialogue, for the two nations have fundamentally different conceptions concerning the role of the market in society.  In capitalist USA, the market rules; whereas in socialist Cuba, the needs of the people are predominant.  In capitalism, there are few limits on the market.  In socialism, the space for the market must be evaluated in the context of the protection of the economic and social rights of the people and the right of the people to economic, social and cultural development. Cuba believes that the amount of space given to the market depends on the conditions in each nation, and each nation should make such judgments, with full sovereignty, on the basis of the needs of the people.  As the US-Cuban relation unfolds, Cuba will exercise its sovereignty with respect to the place of the market in its socialist society.  But it would welcome dialogue on the theme, hoping to persuade the United States and other powerful nations of the North that a political-economic-cultural world-system that gives priority to the market is not sustainable in the long run.

     Kerry urges the Cuban government to fulfill its obligations with respect to international agreements on human rights.  He appears to be unaware that Cuba is a world leader in the field of human rights.  It has a comprehensive understanding of human rights, according to which human rights include the political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights of all citizens of the planet, and the right of all nations to sovereignty and economic and social development.  This advanced understanding has been forged by a revolutionary process against colonialism and neocolonialism, a struggle that began in 1868 and that required serious reflection on the meaning of human rights.  As a result of widespread international recognition of Cuban advances in theory and practice with respect to human rights, particularly among the nations and peoples of the Third World, Cuba plays a leading role in defining and advocating human rights in the United Nations and other international forums, while US influence with respect to human rights is diminishing (see “Cuba, United States, and Human Rights” 4/9/2015).

      Kerry would like to see the flourishing of an “independent civil society” in Cuba.  He appears unaware of the different roles of civil society in different nations, according to the nature of the political process.  In societies where the political process is controlled by the elite, the people form organizations to protest policies that ignore the rights of the people.  In such societies, the popular struggle for democratic rights takes the form of organizations that are independent of the government and critical of the government.  But in societies where the delegates of the people control the decision-making process, the organizations of civil society are independent of the government, but they are not necessarily critical of the government.  They are non-governmental organizations, but they are not against the government.  Because Cuban NGOs are not anti-government, the US government considers them to be not independent, even though they in fact are.  Kerry, then, is advocating a greater role for non-governmental organizations that are anti-government.  But such organizations necessarily would have a limited role in Cuba, as long as Cuban political structures continue to have ample space for the input of non-governmental organizations.  In Cuba, the weakness of anti-government NGOs is not an indication of a lack of democracy; it reflects the democratic character of the Cuban political process, in that the demands of the NGOs are addressed through the structures of popular participation and popular power (see “Cuba and the Civil Society Debate” 4/13/2015).

      In his speech, Kerry welcomed the three ex-marines who lowered the US flag at the closing of the US embassy in 1961.  The US State Department apparently took a cue from the opening ceremony of the Cuban Embassy in Washington, which raised the same Cuban flag that was lowered in 1961, fulfilling a promise that it would be returned (see “USA and Cuba establish relations” July 24, 2015).  For Kerry, the USA also has fulfilled a promise that it would return to have a presence in Cuba.  But there is a fundamental difference between the two nations, their embassies and their flags.  For Cuba, the return of the Cuban flag was tied to a commitment to its sovereignty, and it accomplished the raising again of the Cuban flag without compromising a single one of its principles.  In contrast, the US lowered its flag in Havana in 1961, not in defense of a principle, but in reaction to Cuban affront to its imperial power.  And the USA accomplished the raising again of the US flag in Havana, not through defense of its principles, but as a result of changes in its imperialist strategy, compelled by Cuban resistance and by total international rejection of US policy with respect to Cuba. 

     There is a popular saying that “power corrupts,” which implies that when a person attains political power, he or she will be corrupted.  The adage manipulates people into thinking that when a leader of a triumphant revolution takes office as head of state, he will succumb to the temptations of power and will move toward totalitarian abuse of power.  So we in the United States assume that Cuba has totalitarian tendencies, since it was led for many years by the same charismatic leader, whom it continues to embrace with affection.  But the popular adage completely misreads the role of the charismatic leader in popular revolutionary processes.  It does not see that the authority of charismatic leaders is based in popular movement and the values that it expresses, which maintain a decisive hold on the heart and will of the charismatic leader, and which is continually reinforced by a bond between the leader and the people.  The bond is reinforced by the total breaking of ties with the global powers during the revolutionary process, who can see the bond between the leader and the people. The leader has cast his fate with the people.  (See various posts on Charismatic Leaders).

     We the people must see through the distortions implied in the adage “power corrupts,” and embrace another phrase, “the arrogance of power.”  Whereas “power corrupts” refers to a betrayal of the people by an individual who assumes power, the “arrogance of power” refers to the power not of individuals but of nations.  Powerful nations attain power through force and violence.  Their power is not based in the moral authority of the people, or an educated class of scholars, or a prophetic religious tradition.  The power of powerful nations has no moral constraints.  It engages in any strategy in defense of its power, including an Orwellian distortion of the meaning of concepts.  Power enhances material life, but it destroys the soul of the nation, causing it to develop a network of distortions, lies and half-truths, hiding from the people the fundamental fact that force is the foundation of its power. In order to be free, we the people of the United States have to reflect on the implications of “the arrogance of power” with respect to our own nation. 

     When the defense and legitimation of power shapes a nation, it generates confusion in all quarters, a confusion so profound that not even educators, intellectuals, religious leaders or political leaders can escape it or transform it.  The speech of US Secretary of State John Kerry in Havana on August 15, 2015 contained the false premises of a nation that has undermined its capacity to understand the meaning of democracy.  It is a discourse that reflects the “arrogance of power.”

     In a joint press conference following Kerry’s speech, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez reiterated the five points that Cuba considers to be essential to the normalization of relations (see “Cuba is and will be sovereign” 7/3/2015).  And he pointed out that Cuba has concerns with respect to US violations of human rights, with respect to the killing of African-American youth and the torturing of prisoners.

      The United States of America will continue to be an arrogant power, until the people of the United States lift up an alternative political party of the people, whose moral authority will rest with the people and will not be based on force.  An alternative political party will cast aside Orwellian proclamations of democracy, and it will appreciate that the nations of the Third World have something to teach the peoples of the North with respect to the meaning of democracy and human rights.


Key words:  Cuba, Kerry, US Embassy, Havana

     On August 13, 2015, at 1:23 in the morning, Fidel Castro marked his 89th birthday by writing a message to the Cuban people, published in the newspaper Granma on that date.  The message referred to important developments of the twentieth century, including the emergence of the United States as the hegemonic power of the world-system in the post-World War II era, during which time the United States held in reserve nearly all the gold in the world.  But the United States was not able to continue backing the US dollar with gold, which resulted in President Nixon announcing the removal of the gold standard for the dollar.  Fidel noted that this unilateral decree by the United States violated the Bretton Woods agreement, and it undermined the economy of the United States.  In his retrospective reflective on the Vietnam War, former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara explained that the source of the problem was the increasing amount of US dollars circulating abroad, as a result of the considerable number of military bases throughout the world (McNamara 1996).

       While the United States was ruining its economy through a policy of military domination of the world, Cuba was on an alternative journey, described by Fidel as involving a commitment to good will and peace among all the countries of the world, in order to assure the survival of the human species.  Cuba, Fidel affirmed in his message, will never cease in struggling for peace and wellbeing among all human beings of the planet, regardless of color or country of origin.  He concluded the message by thanking all those who have been committed to the dream of justice and equality for all the inhabitants of the planet, ideals that were proclaimed when the revolutionary struggle in Cuba was initiated.  Such ideals have included the concept of the equal right of all citizens with respect to health, education, work, nutrition, security, culture, science and wellbeing.

      The Cuban daily television news program, The Roundtable, celebrated Fidel’s birthday with a discussion on “Fidel and Cuban Science,” with a panel formed by the President of the Cuban Academy of Science and directors of Cuban centers of scientific research.  The panelists described the vision of Fidel in 1960 for the institutionalization of science in Cuba, in which Cuban scientific development would contribute to the well-being of the peoples of Cuba and the world, particularly in the underdeveloped countries of the Third World.  This vision, the panelists noted, was formulated at a time in which Cuba was still a country with a high rate of illiteracy, and state support for the institutionalization of science was a relatively new phenomenon in the world, completely unimagined with respect to a Third World country.  The panelists further described the active participation of Fidel in the implementation of the vision, including visits to research centers that would last for hours at a time.

      Fidel Castro is one of the most important figures of the twentieth century, who illustrates the central and necessary role of charismatic leaders in the unfolding of popular revolutions committed to a more just social order.  See various posts in the section on Charismatic Leaders.

Reference

McNamara, Robert S., with Brian VanDeMark.  1996.  In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.  New York: Random House, Vintage Books.
 

Key words:  Fidel, Cuba, science, dollar, gold standard

     We have seen in previous posts that the concept of South-South cooperation has been central to the vision of Third World nations for autonomous development and true independence, and that BRICS (formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) has moved toward South-South cooperation, seeking to develop alternative norms of international relations based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than domination and exploitation (see “The Fall and Rise of South-South Cooperation” 7/24/2014; “BRICS advances to South-South cooperation” 7/29/2014).

     At the VII BRICS Summit, held in Ufa, Russia, on July 9, 2015, BRICS reaffirmed its commitment to promoting an international order based on “mutually beneficial cooperation” among nations.  It affirmed the principle of South-South cooperation along with North-South cooperation:  “We are committed to further strengthening and supporting South-South cooperation, while stressing that South-South cooperation is not a substitute for, but rather a complement to North-South cooperation, which remains the main channel of international development cooperation.”  It expressed its “intention to contribute to safeguarding a fair and equitable international order.”

     The Final Declaration of the Summit, known as the Ufa Declaration 2015, also reaffirmed the commitment of BRICS to the United Nations, as an organization of universal membership that has a central role to play in global affairs.  It called for the democratic reform of the United Nations, including changes in Security Council membership, in order to make it more representative.

      The Declaration emphasized the importance of principles of international law that are expressed in the United Nations Charter with respect to the sovereignty and equality of all nations.  “We emphasize the central importance of the principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, particularly the political independence, territorial integrity and sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs of other states and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

      The Ufa Declaration called upon the nations of the world to respect international law and to discard the double standards that place the interests of some countries over others.  It condemned “unilateral military interventions and economic sanctions in violation of international law and universally recognized norms of international relations.”

     The Declaration rejected the political manipulation of human rights through a distorted emphasis on civil and political rights:  “We will continue to treat all human rights – civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development – on the same footing and to give them equal attention. We will take every effort to bolster constructive and non-politicized human rights dialogue at all relevant international fora, including the United Nations.”

     The BRICS Declaration expressed its preoccupation with the persistent risks to the global economy, including high public debt, unemployment, poverty, and inequality.  It expressed concern about “potential spillover effects from the unconventional monetary policies of the advanced economies.”

     The Ufa Declaration affirmed its satisfaction with the formation of a New Development Bank by BRICS (see “The BRICS Bank of Development” 7/30/2014), which “shall serve as a powerful instrument for financing infrastructure investment and sustainable development projects in the BRICS and other developing countries and emerging market economies and for enhancing economic cooperation between our countries.”

     The Declaration called for reform of the IMF, revising quotas and voting power in favor of countries in development.  It expressed its disappointment with the failure of the United States to ratify reforms that were proposed in 2010.

     The Declaration called for debt restructuring.  It expressed concern for the unstable financial system and price volatility in global commodity markets.  It called for development of the real sector of the economy, noting that industrial development had been central to the growth of the BRICS economies in recent years.

     Ufa Declaration 2015 affirmed its support for the post-2015 development agenda, pending before the United Nations, which will guide international development cooperation in the next 15 years.  “We reaffirm our commitment to the ambitious post-2015 development agenda. . . . We reiterate that the post-2015 development agenda should be built on the foundation laid by the Millennium Development Goals. . . . A post-2015 development agenda should furthermore reinforce the international community's commitment to eradicate poverty; achieve sustained, equitable and inclusive economic growth and sustainable development; and fully comply with all principles of the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio in 1992.”  

     The Declaration maintains that the eradication of poverty is necessary for the attainment of sustainable development.  “We consider eradication of poverty as an indispensable requirement for and overarching objective towards the attainment of sustainable development, and stress the need for a coherent approach to attain inclusive and balanced integration of economic, social and environmental components of sustainable development.”

     The Ufa Declaration condemns terrorism in all of its forms.  “We reiterate our strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and stress that there can be no justification, whatsoever, for any acts of terrorism, whether based upon ideological, religious, political, racial, ethnic, or any other justification.”  It insisted that responses to terrorism should be in accordance with international law, and it called upon all governments to “resist political approaches and selective application.”  

     The Declaration condemns mass electronic surveillance.  “We reiterate our condemnation of mass electronic surveillance and data collection of individuals all over the world, as well as violation of the sovereignty of States and of human rights, in particular, the right to privacy.”

     With respect to the exploration of outer space, the Declaration state that “outer space shall be free for peaceful exploration and use by all States on a basis of equality in accordance with international law, and the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development.”

     The Declaration also expressed the position of the BRICS nations with respect to Syria, Palestine, the nuclear energy program of Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Libya, South Sudan, Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, and the Central African Republic.

     The nations of BRICS are seeking to play a leading role in the development of a more democratic world-system that would be based on universal human values (see “Universal human values” 4/16/2014) rather than neocolonial dominations.  The progressive and socialist governments of the Third World are looking to reduce their structural dependency on the neocolonial European powers and to expand economic, commercial and cultural interchange with the BRICS, in their quest for a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system.

     The full text of the Ufa Declaration can be found at VII BRICS Summit: 2015 Ufa Declaration.

Key words: BRICS, South-South cooperation, Ufi Declaration 2015

Posted August 5, 2015

      In a June 19 post in his blog, “Diary of a Heartland Radical,” on the occasion of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States, Harry Targ wrote:

     Although I generally like what Harry writes in his blog, I have difficulties with the above paragraph.  First, I do not believe that people in the United States, including those of us who support the Cuban Revolution and/or consider ourselves socialists, should be encouraging one or another direction in the evolution of the Cuban revolutionary project.  We should have full respect for Cuban autonomy and their right, as a sovereign people and nation, to decide on the future development of their socialist project of national liberation, in accordance with their principles, needs, and historical experiences.  Moreover, they have a far greater understanding of their problems and issues than we do.  And by virtue of their historical experiences, they also have a far greater understanding of the meaning of revolution and socialism, and of the pitfalls confronting a nation seeking true independence in a neocolonial world-system.

      Secondly, the paragraph implies that the Cuban revolutionary project did not have a commitment to the empowerment of workers and workplace democracy prior to the adoption in 2012 by the National Assembly of Popular Power of the new economic and social model.  But this is not at all the case.  Since the 1960s, in state enterprises and in cooperatives, workers have been organized, freely electing their leaders, who serve in joint committees with managers in the decision-making process and in the development of the enterprise.  Moreover, the workers’ federation, along with parallel mass organizations of women, students, and neighborhoods, have a constitutionally-mandated voice in the commissions of the National Assembly, itself formed by structures of popular democracy.  The agricultural cooperatives formed in the 1960s have been among the most successful enterprises, in terms of productivity as well as the development in practice of a process of participatory democracy from below, and this is one of the reasons that the new model encourages the expansion of cooperatives to other sectors.

     The changes underway in the new economic and social model are significant, but change is not new in revolutionary Cuba.  The Cuban scholar Jesus Arboleya describes seven stages since 1959 prior to the adoption of the new economic and social model.  See “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context” for a description of the stages in the evolution of the Cuban socialist project as well as for a description of Cuban structures of popular democracy, which are distinct from representative democracy.

      The motivation behind and the characteristics of the new economic and social model are complex.  I would say that above all it is driven by a desire to increase productivity, in order to comply with the expectations of the people.  The policies adopted in the early 1990s in response to the collapse of the socialist bloc have been successful in providing for the needs of the people.  The difference in the material conditions of the people between 1993 and now are stunning.  But the recovery has not kept pace with the expectations of the people, and there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with material conditions, leading to an erosion in revolutionary fervor (but not opposition to the revolution).  So the revolutionary leadership, always in tune with the pulse of the people, is committed to improving productivity and material conditions, in order to keep the people on board in support of the revolutionary project.  To this end, they have adopted many strategies, such as expansion of cooperatives and self-employment, a loosening of restrictions on foreign investment, and encouragement of criticism of customs and procedures that create problems or inhibit productivity.

     In the conclusion to his post, Harry asserts that we have “an opportunity to educate Americans to the reality that the United States is not ‘the indispensable nation,’ but one among many with virtues and flaws.”  I would go further in describing our task of educating the people of the United States.  We should teach that the US government is a government of, by and for the corporations and the wealthy, and that we should follow the example of our brothers and sisters in Latin America, who have used electoral processes to cast aside traditional political parties that represent the elite and to put into power new parties that serve as delegates of the people.


Key words: Cuba, socialism, US intellectuals

Posted August 6, 2015

    In response to my critique of Harry Targ’s blog post (see “Role of US intellectuals", Part I), Cliff DuRand wrote:

I am in agreement that, as persons committed to a fully democratic and just society, we US intellectuals of the Left should criticize Obama and all twentieth century presidents for the continuous application of imperialist policies, which have been integral to the development and maintenance of the neocolonial world-system.  I have written several blog posts on US imperialism and neocolonialism, including a post on April 22 on “The imperialist discourse of Obama.”  (See View from the South: Imperialism and View from the South: Neocolonialism).

     But in addition to critiques of the dominating structures of the world-system, we intellectuals of the Left should critically reflect on our perspectives.  I believe that the discourse of the Left is an important factor in our limited influence, and that we need to reconstruct our discourse on the basis of the assumptions and values of the revolutionary movements of the Third World.  

     I was critical of a paragraph that Harry wrote, because it seemed to reflect a tendency in the US Left to assume that we know what should be done around the world.  But we in the US Left really do not have the credentials that would qualify us to know what courses of action Third World revolutionary governments should take.   Although progressive popular movements in the United States have registered impressive gains in making the nation more democratic, they have accomplished far less than popular movements in Cuba, Latin America and Southeast Asia.  The Cuban movement, for example, managed to overcome internal divisions and to take control of the government, and to maintain control of the political, economic and cultural structures of the nation for more than fifty years, in spite of the hostility of its powerful neighbor to the north.  We progressives in the United States have not accomplished anything close to this.  In this situation, there are fundamental questions that we should ask: How did the Cuban popular movement do it?  What are lessons that we can learn from their achievements?  How can we apply these lessons to our reality?  I think that we should do a lot less suggesting concerning what they should do, and much more listening and learning.

     How do we arrive at an understanding of what should be done or what the characteristics of a just society are?  The most insightful ideas emerge from popular movements forged from below, fueled by a collective experiential understanding of the structures of domination and exploitation, and by a tremendous thirst for social justice.  The yearnings and spontaneous action of the people establish fertile ground for the nurturing of leaders and intellectuals, and charismatic leaders who are both leaders and intellectuals.  This process of popular movement from below in response to domination is the source of advances in human understanding with respect to the dynamics of domination and the characteristics of a just society.

     We relatively privileged intellectuals of the middle class of core nations can advance our understanding by encounter with the popular movements from below, listening to the teachings of their charismatic leaders, and carefully observing their dynamics and strategies.  Our understanding emerges from this continuous observation of and listening to the movement unfolding from below.  In arriving at an understanding of imperialism and neocolonialism, for example, my thinking has been shaped by years of encounter with organic intellectuals of the Third World, specifically the African-American community, Africa, Central America, and Cuba.  I believe that listening to the voices of the Third World, seeking thereby to deepen our insight, is central to advances in understanding in the political culture of the North.

     Accordingly, I believe that we should not be oriented to suggesting to the movements of the South what they ought to be doing.  In more than forty years of encounter with organic intellectuals of the Third World, I have arrived at the conclusion that they have a more advanced understanding than we do.  In these years of encounter seeking understanding, I have not forgotten the criticism of white liberal paternalism by African-Americans during the period 1966-72, and I have sought to listen and learn, rather than to instruct.

      When we do not sufficiently encounter Third World revolutionary movements, we do not fully understand the structures of domination nor the necessary processes and strategies for their democratic transformation.  This severely limits our capacity to politically act effectively.  Our people are confused, manipulated by the ideological distortions of the elite and their puppets; but the people know enough to know that we intellectuals of the Left do not know.  We support revolutions in other lands, without seeking to develop one in our own nation.  We are content to “speak truth to power” on behalf of the people, rather than seeking to take power in the name of the people.  Of course, our support for revolutions in other lands is critical; we offer criticisms of revolutionary projects in other nations on the basis of abstract concepts that are informed by our cultural and intellectual context and that are disconnected from real social movement.

     I have not forgotten the teachings of Malcolm X, who counseled sincere whites to dedicate themselves to the political education of white society.  Our task as US intellectuals, on the basis of the understanding that we form through encounter, is to strive to create the subjective conditions that would make possible the emergence of a revolutionary popular movement in the United States that would seek to take power in the name of the people and that would cooperate with the nations and movements of the world in the creation of a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system.  This is not an easy task, but it is our duty; with the privilege to study, comes obligation.


Key words: Cuba, socialism, revolution, intellectuals

     Cliff DuRand of the Center for Global Justice has written an article on cooperatives in Cuba.   It presents a contrast between a twentieth century state socialism from above in Cuba and a twenty-first century socialism from below, most clearly exemplified by the expansion of cooperatives in the Cuban social and economic model adopted in 2012.  In contrast to DuRand’s view, I interpret the evolution of the Cuban revolutionary project in terms of continuity, a constant evolution in response to a continually changing national and international situation.  

     To be sure, there were some tendencies prior to 2012 toward passive acceptance among the people to direction from above, in spite of the efforts of the leadership to develop structures of popular power and popular participation.  A few Cuban academics have written of the phenomenon.  But neither the Cuban leadership, journalists, nor people have demonstrated much awareness or concern with the problem.  In my view, it is a normal phenomenon.  In the best of circumstances, some 25% or 30% of the people will be creative, dynamic, and hardworking; but most people will support the society in a more passive form, except for particular moments of national challenge, when sacrifice and commitment will soar.

     DuRand’s article suggests that there was popular dissatisfaction with the decision-making process prior to 2012.  But I have not found dissatisfaction in Cuba with the decision-making process developed by the revolution, or a belief that Cuba had a top-down form of socialism prior to 2012.  Indeed, there is a fair amount of national pride with respect to the alternative structures of popular participation and popular democracy that have been developed in revolutionary Cuba, institutionalized in the 1970s.  

     Without question, the overwhelming and principal dissatisfaction since the 1990s has been with respect to the level of production, the limited resources of the country, and the low income of most people.  This material dissatisfaction has become stronger in the last five years or so, and it has arisen because of an increasing popular tendency to use the consumer societies of the North as a frame of reference, a phenomenon that has emerged as a result of the growing number of tourists, and because of emigration to the societies of the North by Cubans who support their families in Cuba.  Tourism and emigration have been central to the economic recovery since 1993.  But they have contributed to a material dissatisfaction among the people, even as material needs have been increasingly met.  The rising expectations of the people include desires for necessities (better housing and transportation), items that are not necessary but useful (cell phones and Internet access), and false needs (designer clothes and jewelry).

      The Cuban leadership has responded to this new situation with a concerted national campaign to increase production in order to satisfy the expectations of the people.  The campaign includes decentralization of decision-making, accompanied by exhortations that the people should openly identify sources of problems in production, so that the problems can be addressed and efficiency improved.  It includes an expansion of cooperatives to non-agricultural sectors, with the hope that this will expand work incentive and improve efficiency. And it includes changes that can be seen as movements toward capitalism or a capitalist attitude:  expansion in self-employment, expansion of small-scale capitalism, less restrictions with respect to foreign investment, and the connection of wages to productivity. These capitalist-like measures, it should be understood, are not concessions to a national bourgeoisie or to foreign capital; they are concessions to the people, and they are made with the belief that they will improve production to the benefit of the people.  And they are made with recognition that the people have suffered and sacrificed much, and their needs and desires should be met.

      The concessions to the people with respect to self-employment and small-scale capitalism is a dynamic that has been unfolding for many years.  In poor societies, people invent concrete ways to survive and/or improve their material circumstances.  These include working as small-scale retail traders and independent service providers in such trades as carpentry, plumbing, house repair, hairdressing, taxi driving and cafeteria services.  In Cuba prior to 2012, there was limited space for such individual entrepreneurship in the formal economy, so people engaged in it “on the side.”  When they needed materials for their crafts, they often would acquire them illegally from state employees who had access to them.  Inasmuch as the materials were destined to some other purpose in state planning, this form of corruption contributed to inefficiency in government projects.  This dynamic had been present in socialist Cuba from the beginning, but with the economic difficulties following the collapse of the socialist bloc, it increased significantly, becoming a serious problem.  

      The new social and economic model of 2012 seeks to address this problem.  In expanding self-employment in 2012, the government was recognizing small-scale entrepreneurial work as legitimate and as part of the formal economy, so that people now can much more readily attain licenses in these trades and services.  And the same time, the government is making necessary materials available for purchase in state stores, so there is no need to buy them on the side; a reform that is coupled with government clampdown on corruption, so that state projects can be carried out more efficiently.

       In significantly expanding small-scale entrepreneurship, the party and the government have taken a decision that goes against the classic socialist view that work should be collective.  But the view of the Cuban government is that dignified individual work has a place in a socialist society, insofar as the workers are organized into labor organizations, and they are part of a society in which the principal institutions of the economy and the media are managed by the state, which is controlled by structures of popular democracy.  The concession of small-scale entrepreneurship by the revolution to the people is consistent with the notion that socialism is defined by the people in practice.

      From a socialist point of view, the desire of the people for dignified individual labor is not as challenging as the growing consumerism of the people, stimulated by tourism and emigration, which is in tension with the view of the new socialist person formulated by Che Guevara in the 1960s.  In my view, the Cuban revolutionary experience of the last twenty years shows that it is very difficult to cultivate and maintain a purely socialist attitude among the people in the context of a capitalist world-economy and an international consumer society.  

     But at the same time, Cuba has been able to develop the new socialist person among a significant minority, comprising 25% to 30% of the people.  Formed by socialist educational institutions and the media, with the support of families with revolutionary traditions, these socialist persons have a solid understanding of national and international dynamics, and they have a strong commitment to universal human values.  They serve as dedicated professionals in health, education, journalism, and other fields; and they serve as leaders in the mass organizations and in the political structures of popular power.  They form in practice a revolutionary vanguard, and they are central to the survival and continued growth of the revolutionary project.  They are of the people, for they come from all sectors of the people, and they are connected to the people, by blood, emotion and spirit.  But a distinction can and should be made between the vanguard and the people.  

       The recent national congress of the Union of Communist Youth, covered on national television, provided clear evidence of a youth vanguard with advanced understanding and commitment to socialist values, a youth vanguard that has been formed in spite of the fact that its members were born in the depths of the Special Period.  One of the delegates eloquently expressed the view that a “war of thought” is on the horizon, as US ideas and presence will increase in the next years.  He called upon the delegates to be effective in explaining to the people the virtues and benefits of socialism.  Another delegate described it as a battle between a society that calls people to a form of being, and a society that manipulates people to acquire things.  In his address to the Congress, Cuban Vice-President Miguel Díaz Canel expressed it as a struggle between a society guided by universal human values and a society ruled by the market.  The vice-president also noted that the proceedings of the Congress clearly demonstrated that the revolution had succeeded in forming the new socialist person that Che envisioned.

     I am confident that the Cuban vanguard is winning and will prevail in the “war of thought,” which Fidel has called the “Battle of Ideas,” because of the high moral and intellectuals qualities of the youth vanguard, and because there is a deep fund of respect for the revolutionary project and the revolutionary leadership among the people, even if they do not fully embody the new socialist person.

      The evolution of the socialist project in Cuba parallels the evolution of the popular movements in Latin America, where “Socialism for the Twenty-First Century” has been declared, with Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador at the vanguard.  Today’s Latin American socialism distances itself from twentieth century socialism in Eastern Europe, but it has embraced twentieth century socialism in Cuba, considering Cuba to be the model of Latin American dignity.  Like twentieth century socialism, Latin American socialism sees the state as playing a central role in economic development, but it recognizes multiple forms of property as legitimate, including private property, cooperatives, and joint ventures with domestic and foreign capital, in addition to state ownership.  Like twentieth century socialism, Latin American socialism today is led by charismatic leaders and a vanguard in each nation; however, the vanguard is not conceived as being formed from the working class, but from multiple popular sectors, including workers, peasants, students, women, the middle class, indigenous persons, and ecologists.  

       Revolutionary and progressive governments in Latin America have changed the political reality of the region during the last twenty years.  They provide important lessons for Leftist activists and intellectuals of the North.


Key words: Cuba, socialism, vanguard, cooperatives

Posted August 10, 2015

​     In reflecting on Cliff DuRand’s support of cooperatives in Cuba (see “Cooperatives and social change in Cuba” 8/7/2015), it seemed to me that DuRand’s view reflects a subtle form of utopian socialism.  In formulating historical materialism, Marx endeavored to place socialist thought on a scientific foundation.  He envisioned a transition to socialism on the basis of empirical observation of possibilities contained in existing economic and political conditions.  After Marx, socialist thought could move beyond a utopian and idealist vision for humanity and project a real possibility through the practical resolution of contradictions in the existing political-economic system.  But DuRand, in advocating the expansion of cooperatives and the reduction of state property and small-scale private party, is advocating a direction for the future of the socialist project on the basis of idealist conceptions and not on the basis of real challenges and possibilities in Cuba.

     To be sure, cooperatives are a part of the Cuban socialist project, developed in agriculture in the 1960s, expanded in the agricultural sector in the 1990s, and expanded to non-agricultural sectors in the new economic and social model of 2012.  But DuRand’s idealist view of cooperatives causes him to exaggerate the role of the cooperatives in the new social and economic model, and to misinterpret the evolution of the Cuban revolutionary project from 1959 to the present.  In my last post, I attempted to describe the new social and economic model in a form that is more consistent with the constantly evolving Cuban empirical social reality (“Cooperatives and social change in Cuba” 8/7/2015).

     Utopian socialism has a long history in the United States.  During the nineteenth century, concentration of ownership of the means of production led to growing popular awareness that that the US economic system functioned for the benefit of the few and ignored the welfare of the people.  In this economic and ideological context, Robert Owen, a Welsh factory owner, and Charles Fourier, a French entrepreneur, proposed the development of cooperative communities, which would remove ownership and control from a handful of capitalists.  They and their followers in the United States believed that capitalists could be persuaded to invest in cooperative communities, since it was the best way to avoid a revolution from below stimulated by the working class (Foner 1975:170-72).

     Robert Owen came to the United States in 1825.  He addressed the House of Representatives on two occasions, which included the attendance of the president, the president-elect, and heads of departments.  His frequent addresses across the nation were fully reported in the US press.  From 1825 to 1827, nineteen Owenite communities were established in New York, Ohio and Indiana (Foner 1975: 173).  

     Fourier’s ideas also had significant influence in the United States.  His greatest disciple in the United States, Albert Brisbane, disseminated his ideas in various books and articles and in the columns of the New York Tribune, founded by Horace Greeley, in the early 1840s.  Fourierism had thousands of adherents, and forty Fourierist communities was established across the nation.  The most famous of them, Brook Farm, counted among its associates the intellectual giants of the time, including Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne (Foner 1975:174-77).

      The Owenite and Fourierist communities failed.  Their principle problem was the inability to attract sufficient capital for investment (Foner 1975:173, 177-78).  During the 1840s and 1850s, in spite of the practical failure of their project, the utopian advocates of cooperative communities had significant influence in the working class movement.  Utopians were opposed to the reform of capitalism, and thus they were against the strategy of striking to increase wages and reduce labor hours, even when this was understood as integral to a long-term transition to socialism.  They tried to convince workers that anything less than the total and immediate abolition of capitalism would have no positive effect.  Middle class reformers often entered the working class organizations and took control of them, undermining political and social action in defense of workers’ needs (Foner 1975:188-90, 206, 211).

      But middle class utopianism was on the decline, unable to deliver on its promises, as a result of the refusal of the capitalist class to cooperate in its vision.  At the same time, producers’ cooperatives, formed from below by workers, were economically impossible, as a result of the ruthless competition practiced by the largest capitalist enterprises, as we will see in the next post.  

     But another approach was emerging.  During the 1840s, a permanent class of factory workers began to develop.  Permanent factory workers began to forge a movement that sought to bring the advances of industrialization to workers through political and economic struggle and united action.  Against the utopians, they understood that the interests of capitalists and workers were in conflict, and that the organization by workers was necessary for the attainment of a better life.

      The working class organizations formed by workers, seeking improvement in conditions through the strike, was a force that, distinct from cooperative communities, could not be ignored; and distinct from workers’ cooperatives, could not be defeated and eliminated.  During the course of more than a century, the factory owners were compelled to make reformist concessions to this force from below, which, however, preserved the essence of the capitalist system.

      We can understand today that the reformist concessions in the United States and other core nations were made possible by the superexploitation of vast regions of the planet, which would become politically unsustainable by the 1960s.  And they were in part financed by government deficit spending, which reached its limits during the 1970s.  Thus the reform of the capitalist system in response to the demands of organized workers ultimately would not be a sustainable resolution of the contradictions of the capitalist world-economy.

     That US capitalists would not support a transition from concentrated private ownership to cooperative communities could not be known in the 1840s.  It could be imagined as a reasonable option, emerging as a resolution of the contradictions of the capitalist system, which generates a permanent class war.  But during the second half of the nineteenth century, in the era of the Robber Barons, the capitalist class demonstrated that it was prepared to use all methods, legal or not, peaceful or not, in its quest to stabilize a high margin of profits, even at the expense of the good of the nation in the long run.  And since 1980, the capitalist class has demonstrated that it is prepared to put the survival of humanity at risk in the aggressive pursuit of short-term profits.  So at the present time, it would be idealist and utopian to believe that the capitalist class would possibly cooperate in the development of a more just and democratic world-system.  We can only conclude that the capitalist class must be dislodged from political power by popular movement, if political stability in the world-system is to be attained and the survival of humanity ensured.

     Although utopianism and cooperatives demonstrated their lack of viability in the nineteenth century, they continued to survive in the form of idealist hopes of the people.  They were manifest in the hippie communal movement of the late 1960s and in the localism of the Occupy Movement today.   We must, however, follow the example of Marx.  We must seek to overcome the temptations of utopianism and to be scientific in our understanding, basing our projections on real possibilities.  The example of Cuba is instructive in this regard.  In Cuba, the popular revolution first took control of the state, and then proceeded to develop cooperatives along with other forms of property, both private and state, in accordance with real needs and possibilities, as we will discuss in the next post.  Rather that supporting cooperatives in Cuba as against the other forms of property developed by the Cuban Revolution, we should follow the example of Cuba: we should form in our own nation a popular movement that seeks to take power and to subsequently develop forms of property that are real possibilities and that respond to the material and cultural needs of our people.

Posted August 11, 2015

​     In the aftermath of the failure of the cooperative communities in the United States (see “Utopian socialism in the USA” 8/10/2015), a movement for the formation of workers’ cooperatives emerged.  These were different from the Owenite and Fourierist cooperative communities, which were to be organized by enlightened capitalists who recognized that capitalism is not politically sustainable in the long-term.  The worker’s cooperatives were organized by workers; they were cooperatives from below.  However, in spite of this evident virtue, the workers’ cooperatives also were utopian, in the sense that they did not have real possibility for economic survival in the context of the capitalist system in which they were located.

     The first workers’ cooperative was formed by striking iron molders in Cincinnati in 1848, who established a cooperative foundry to support themselves during the strike.  The venture was initially successful, and by 1850, the venture was chartered by the State of Ohio, and it had forty members.  Inspired by the example, a host of producers’ cooperatives were established by workers across the country (Foner 1975:178-81).

     However, the cooperatives were destroyed by capitalists through the strategy of “ruthless competition.”   The strategy involves selling at a price below cost in order to eliminate competition, a maneuver that can only be adopted by a large company with sufficient capital to engage in an economic war against targeted companies.  In the era of the Robber Barons, ruthless competition was employed against both workers’ cooperatives and small-scale private property, and it was central to the emergence of large-scale and concentrated capitalism in the second half of the nineteenth century in the United States.  Once a few concentrated companies emerge in an industry, they are in a position to cooperate with one another in establishing high prices and stability in high profit margins (Foner 1975:180, 183; Josephson 2011).

      The destruction of workers’ cooperatives and small-scale private enterprises demonstrates the need for popular control of the state, which can establish effective legislation against ruthless competition and price fixing.  At the end of the nineteenth century, there was legislation against monopoly capital, but inasmuch as the state remained in the control of the capitalist class, the legislation was full of loopholes, and it was inconsistently enforced (Josephson 2011).  In contrast, a state truly under the control of the people, and not merely in rhetoric, can effectively eliminate capitalist practices that are attacks on the people in the pursuit of profit.  It also can nationalize companies, if the economic and political conditions are appropriate; and it can provide technical and financial support to workers’ cooperatives.     

     In the case of Cuba, real possibility for cooperatives has existed both politically and economically since the triumph of the revolution in 1959.  In the 1960s, cooperatives were formed voluntarily by independent small scale farmers, encouraged by the state and with ample structures of state support.  These cooperatives still exist today, and they have been very successful economically, politically, and culturally. However, the judgment of the revolution during the 1960s was that the formation of workers’ cooperatives in the large-scale sugar and coffee plantations would introduce a host of practical problems.  So the revolutionary government, having nationalized privately-owned plantations, converted them into state-managed enterprises, combining state management with structures of popular democracy from below.  With the collapse of the socialist bloc in the 1990s, the state-managed farms were converted into cooperatives, with the intention of stimulating greater worker incentive and making the plantations economically independent and viable.  The results have been mixed.  At the present time, taking into account the desire by the people to improve the standard of living and the energy of an informal entrepreneurial class, the social and economic model of 2012 is expanding the possibilities for cooperatives in the non-agricultural sector, hoping that this will improve productivity.  Thus, in each moment, steps toward cooperatives were taken in response to real needs and a real possibilities, based on analysis of economic and social conditions.

     What role should the cooperatives play in the development of the Cuban socialist economy in the future?  What should be their weight relative to small-scale private entrepreneurship or state companies?  The answer to these questions should not be driven by utopian or idealist expectations.  They should be based on actual needs and real possibilities.  In fact, the revolutionary government sees possibilities not only with respect to the expansion of cooperatives, but also in the expansion of small-scale private property and joint ventures with foreign capital.  Cuba is not so much moving toward cooperatives at the present time but toward the development of a mixed economy, under state direction and regulation, in a manner consistent with the new forms of socialism that are emerging in Latin America.  In this historic moment, the meaning of socialism is being redefined in Latin America by governments whose authority rests on a foundation of popular movements.

    For those of us who are intellectuals of the core nations, our task is not to suggest one or another direction in the evolution of socialism in Third World nations, but to reflect on the possibilities for the development of popular revolutions in our own nations, revolutions that would seek to take power in the name of the people and that would develop forms of property that respond to the needs of the people.

References

Foner, Philip S.  1975.  History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Volume I: From Colonial Times to the Founding of the American Federation of Labor.  New York: International Publishers.

Josephson, Matthew.  2011.  The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901.  New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.  Originally published in 1934 by Harcourt, Brace, and Company.


Key words:  Cuba, cooperatives, socialism, utopian