Posted July 7, 2014

     During the early years of the neocolonial republic, workers organized in defense of their rights.  In 1906, a trade union of construction workers was formed, and it initiated a strike demanding an eight-hour workday and wage increase.  In 1907, tobacco workers in Havana went on strike, demanding wage payments in US dollars, as against Spanish currency (Cuba not yet having its own currency).  The Cuban scholar Teresita Yslesia Martínez attributes the success of these early strikes to the unity and persistence of the workers and to the support that they received from other popular sectors (Instituto de Cuba 1998:79).

     In 1906, the Socialist Party of Manzanillo was formed.  Agustín Martín Veloz (Martinillo), a Spanish tobacco worker with an anarchist-unionist orientation, was elected president.  The party organized cells in the eastern cities of Manzanillo, Bayamo, Holguin, Santiago de Cuba, and Guantánamo, and it played an important role in supporting the successful tobacco workers strike of 1907 in Havana (Instituto de Cuba 1998:79).

     But the Cuban workers’ movement prior to 1917 was limited by prevailing tendencies toward apolitical anarchism (which disdains efforts to take power), trade unionism (which organizes workers separately in each trade), and reformism (which seeks concessions from the bourgeoisie rather than the taking of power by the working class).  However, the Russian Revolution of October 1917 provided a stimulus to its evolution to a more advanced stage.  In 1918 and 1919 in Cuba, as elsewhere in the world, there occurred a significant increase in strikes and mass action by railroad, construction, tobacco, and dock workers and truck drivers, with an increased tendency toward class unity, putting forth demands such as wage increases, recognition of labor unions, and an eight-hour workday (Instituto de Cuba 1998:124-26).

     During the 1920s, the proletarian struggle in Cuba increasingly recognized that the protection of the rights of workers would require the liberation of the nation from US neocolonial domination.  Thus, the workers’ movement became tied to an emerging and evolving anti-imperialist popular movement.  The Worker Congress of 1920 adopted radical positions, distinct from the Worker Congress of 1914, which had been dominated by reformism and opportunism.  The 1920 Congress rejected a proposal for the participation of a Cuban delegation in the pro-imperialist Pan-American Worker Confederation; sent a message of solidarity to the Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia; and approved a motion by Alfredo López Arencibia for the creation of a national worker confederation unifying workers of all trades and regions (Instituto de Cuba 1998: 223-24). 

     In 1921, the Worker Federation of Havana (FOH for its initials in Spanish) was formed, and it attained government recognition in the same year.  It was founded by Alfredo López, a leader in the typographic workers union and the most outstanding proletarian leader of the period.  The FOH sought to promote the ideological and cultural formation of the workers, and to this end, it developed schools with night classes, a newspaper, and a library (Instituto de Cuba 1998:128, 223-24; Vitier 2006:133). 

     Another outstanding leader from the working-class was Enrique Varona González, railroad worker and union president, who organized workers connected to sugar production in the eastern provinces, including workers in the sugar fields, the sugar processing plants, the railroads, and the docks.  He organized a strike with national repercussions of sugar agricultural and industrial workers in the eastern region in 1924.  He was a major force in the forging of a national confederation of workers.  Enrique Varona was assassinated on August 19, 1925 (Instituto de Cuba 1998:226).

      On December 14, 1924, a National Worker Congress was held, in which industrial and agricultural workers from different regions of the country participated.  This would lead to the formation, on August 7, 1925, of the Worker National Confederation of Cuba (CNOC for its initials in Spanish).  It was the first nationwide confederation of workers’ organizations representing agricultural and industrial workers; and it included workers of various ideological tendencies, including anarchist-unionists, socialists, communists, and reformists.  Its leading force was Alfredo López, who was assassinated in 1926 (Instituto de Cuba 1998:226).

     In the societies of the North, the capitalist class was able to channel the labor movement in a reformist as against revolutionary direction through concessions to workers’ demands, which were made possible by profits generated though the super-exploitation of the colonies and neocolonies of the world-system.  And the labor movement in the North developed in a context of ideological justifications of colonial domination, an ideology of racial superiority, and a social custom of racial segregation. 

     But the workers’ movement in Cuba developed in a different context that would channel it toward revolution.  When it emerged during the first two decades of the neocolonial republic, popular consciousness in Cuba already had taken significant steps to overcome social divisions among whites, blacks, and mulattos, as a result of the legacy of Martí. As the contradictions of the neocolonial republic became evident, popular consciousness of the neocolonial situation would continue to develop.  Thus, in the 1920s, the labor movement in Cuba began to evolve in a form integrally tied to a popular struggle for national liberation, which saw the resolution of the problems confronted by each sector as necessarily tied to the national problem of foreign domination.  As a result, the Cuban proletarian movement would evolve as part of an integral movement that addressed interrelated issues of race, class, gender, and imperialism; and that included diverse actors, such as industrial workers, agricultural workers, small farmers, students, women, small merchants, professionals, and intellectuals.  An inclusive popular movement was emerging in practice, and it would lift up charismatic leaders who would formulate an integral popular revolutionary understanding.

      We will be looking at the unfolding of this integral popular movement in subsequent posts.


References

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 

Vitier, Cintio.  2006.  Ese Sol del Mundo Moral.  La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, workers, labor movement

Posted July 8, 2014

     Julio Antonio Mella enrolled in the University of Havana in 1921 at the age of 18, and he immediately was integrated into a group of leaders of a student organization against corruption, which had become one of the principal problems of the neocolonial republic and a symptom of its lack of dignity.  In December 1922, Mella was the leading force in the establishment of the University Student Federation (FEU for its initials in Spanish), which in January 1923, influenced by the university reform movement in Argentina, issued a manifesto calling for the reform of the University of Havana and the reorganization of its curriculum.  A subsequent student strike and occupation of the campus led to recognition of FEU as a student organization by the Cuban government (Instituto de Cuba 1998:220-21; Vitier 2006:134).

     Later in the same year, Mella presided over the First National Congress of Students, in which he presented a Marxist-inspired program that was adopted by the Congress, including a declaration of solidarity between manual workers and intellectual workers and the sending of a message of salutation to the Workers’ Federation of Havana (see “The Cuban workers’ movement of the 1920s” 7/8/2014); an expression of protest of the “outrages committed against the peoples of the Caribbean, Central America, the Philippines, Ireland, Egypt, India, and Morocco,” stating hope that “these peoples will obtain real self-determination;” declarations against US imperialist interference in the affairs of Latin American nations, represented by the Platt Amendment (see “The ‘democratic’ constitution of 1901” 6/30/2014), the Monroe Doctrine, and Pan-Americanism (see “Pan-Americanism and OAS” 10/2/2013); a call for Cuban diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union; and a demand for the establishment of a literacy campaign, similar to those undertaken in Russia and Mexico (Instituto de Cuba 1998:221-22).

      In 1923, Mella also was a leading figure in the establishment of the José Martí Popular University, in which Mella taught a course on the History of Humanity and Cuba.  After it was compelled to relocate off the campus of the University of Havana, the Popular University became a center for exchange of ideas between students and workers.  It was closed by the government in 1927 as part of a campaign of repression against the popular movement (Instituto de Cuba 1998:223, 225, 260-61; Vitier 2006:135).

     With Carlos Baliño López (1848-1926), Mella founded on August 16-17, 1925 the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC for its initials in Spanish), the first Marxist-Leninist party in Cuba.  Baliño, a pioneer of Marxism in Cuba, was a tobacco worker and one of the founders with José Martí of the Cuban Revolutionary Party in 1892.  The PCC was immediately declared illegal, and it was condemned by the press.  Its leaders were murdered, with the number of assassinations reaching 150 during its initial years.  Many of its members were deported or incarcerated.  It survived, however, operating clandestinely.  It was the most disciplined and politically conscious organization of the country, although it had some tendency to apply European concepts to the Cuban situation, a characteristic that Mella himself did not share.  The PCC had considerable influence among workers and peasants, and it was a recognized affiliate of the Third International (Instituto de Cuba 1998:227-30; Arboleya 2008:97).

    Mella was arrested on November 27, 1925, falsely accused of having placed a bomb in a theater.  He carried out a hunger strike from December 5 to December 23 in protest of his unjust arrest.  The hunger strike was a success, inasmuch as the government was compelled to release him, because of the ample national and international protest (Instituto de Cuba 1998:260).

     With his life in danger, Mella left clandestinely for Mexico in January 1926.  During three years of exile in Mexico, he continued his revolutionary activities.  Only 23 years of age when he arrived in Mexico, he joined the Mexican Communist Party and became a part of its Central Committee.  He enrolled in the university to continue his studies, where he founded in 1928 the Association of Proletarian Students and its magazine, El Tren Blindado.  He contributed to the founding of the National Peasant League of Mexico in 1926.  And in February 1927, he attended, as a delegate of Anti-Imperialist League of Latin America, the World Congress against Colonial Oppression and Imperialism in Brussels.  Following the Congress, he visited the Soviet Union (Instituto de Cuba 1998:260, 274; Vitier 2006:136).

      In the beginning of 1928, Mella founded the New Cuban Revolutionary Émigrés, which called for the full independence of Cuba; the elimination of structures of economic dependency on the United States; distribution of land to poor peasants; government protection of national industry; a fully democratic political process, without distinctions based on race or any other social factor; and the rights of workers to strike and to an eight-hour workday (Instituto de Cuba 1998:275-77).

     Julio Antonio Mella was assassinated in Mexico City on January 10, 1929 by an agent of the Cuban government, an event that provoked international protests (Instituto de Cuba 1998:277; Vitier 2006:136).   

      Mella was an important figure in the evolution of a Cuban ethic, tied to political theory and practice, and in the evolution of Cuban Marxism-Leninism, as we shall discuss in the next post.


References

Arboleya, Jesús.  2008.  La Revolución del Otro Mundo: Un análisis histórico de la Revolución Cubana.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 

Vitier, Cintio.  2006.  Ese Sol del Mundo Moral.  La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Julio Antonio Mella

Posted July 9, 2014

    José Martí had forged a movement that responded to the two issues of colonial domination and social inequality: a movement that was anti-imperialist, seeking to establish a truly independent nation; and that sought social equality, in which all would be included as full citizens of the nation, regardless of race or class.  Julio Antonio Mella (see “Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/7/2014) was formed in the moral and intellectual environment established by the powerful teachings of Martí (“José Martí” 6/26/2014).  But Mella had experienced the “rotten fruit” of representative democracy, and he therefore lived in a different historic moment.  He had seen what Martí could not possibly have imagined: the participation of the Cuban national bourgeoisie in the imperialist project of the United States, reducing itself to a figurehead bourgeoisie; the participation of ample sectors of the middle class in the corruption of the republic; and the loss of direction, the “moral blindness” and the “inertia of the soul” that defined the society of the republic (see “A neocolonial republic is born” 7/1/2014).  From Mella’s vantage point, Martí’s formulation of a society made by all and for the good of all seemed impractical.  Mella discerned the need for a struggle by workers, peasants, and the poor that would take power from the political class that had surrendered its dignity to the interests of US corporations and that had forgotten the needs of the humble. Thus, Mella gave a Marxist reading to Martí.  By deepening its awareness of the dynamics of class differences and contradictions, he pushed the legacy of Martí to a more advanced stage.  But he also preserved essential dimensions of Martí, such as anti-imperialism in defense of national independence as well as the ethical messages of Martí, like the need for personal sacrifice in defense of ideals.  Mella therefore also contributed to the evolution of Marxism-Leninism, in which its political theory and practice would be integrally tied to the struggles of neocolonized peoples for full independence.  This synthesis and fusing of Marxism-Leninism and Martí, initiated by Mella, would be brought to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s by Fidel Castro and the “generation of the centenarians,” so-called because they inaugurated a new stage of armed struggle during the year of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Martí (Vitier 2006:124-36; Instituto de Cuba 1998:223).

       Mella was the most advanced leader of what has come to be called the “Generation of 1930.”  He represents an important step in the evolution of a Cuban ethic tied to political practice, which has had four important moments: Carlos Manuel de Céspedes and the first independence struggle of 1868 (see “The Cuban war of independence of 1868” 6/17/2014); José Martí and the second war of independence in 1895, which turned to anti-imperialism and an inclusive concept of democracy; Mella and the Generation of 1930, which, influenced by the Russian Revolution, took the first steps in the fusing of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary ethic and analysis Martí; and Fidel Castro and the “generation of the centenarians,” which brought the revolution to a new stage of armed struggle, the triumph of which made possible a deepening of the theoretical-practical synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and the teachings of Martí that had been initiated by Mella.

      The evolution in Cuban political practice and theory was a part of the evolution of the political theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism on a global scale, which has had five important historic movements: Marx and the Western European workers’ movement of the 1840s; Lenin and the Russian Revolution of 1917-24; the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to China by Mao; the synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and the Third World anti-colonial perspective, represented by Ho, Fidel, and others in the period 1946 to 1979; and the post-1995 renewal of socialism in the Third World, represented by the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America (see “The social and historical context of Marx” 1/15/14; “Reflections on the Russian Revolution” 1/29/2014; “Ho reformulates Lenin” 5/7/2014; “Ho synthesizes socialism and nationalism” 5/8/2014; “Ho’s practical theoretical synthesis” 5/9/2014; “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; “Is Marx today fulfilled?” 3/20/2014; “The alternative world-system from below” 4/15/2014).

     Assassinated at the age of 26, Julio Antonio Mella is remembered and appreciated in Cuban popular consciousness today for his important contributions in the development of the Cuban Revolution and as a symbol of the revolutionary tradition of Cuban students.  At the entrance to the University of Havana, one can find Mella Plaza and monument, where each academic year begins with a ceremony presided by the elected officers of FEU, the student organization that he created.


References

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 

Vitier, Cintio.  2006.  Ese Sol del Mundo Moral.  La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Julio Antonio Mella

Posted July 11, 2014

     In the early 1920s, Cuban women experienced profound prejudice and discrimination, rooted in law and social convention.  The immense majority of women of employment age did not work, and working women received salaries much lower than men for the same work. Women did not have the right to vote or to hold public office.  The rights of women in the family also were minimal, as is illustrated by a law effectively granting a husband authorization to kill an adulterous wife (Instituto de Historia 1998:217-18).

     In 1918, the Feminine Club of Cuba was formed, which led to the establishment of the National Federation of Feminine Associations of Cuba in 1921, with Pilar Morlón as president.  The Federation convened the First National Congress of Women, held from April 1 to April 7, 1923, in which thirty-one organizations participated.  The delegates to the Congress were middle class women with a variety of political, social, and religious perspectives, but on common ground with respect to the issue of gender.  The Congress called for a campaign for woman suffrage; a struggle for the attainment of full and equal social, political, and economic rights for women; a battle against drugs and prostitution; the securing of laws for the protection of children; and the modification of teaching and education (Instituto de Historia 1998:217-18).

      The Second National Congress of Women was held from April 12 to April 18, 1925, which passed resolutions similar to those of the first Congress.  Reflecting a tendency toward the integration of the women’s movement with the workers’ movement and with the popular struggle for national liberation, the Second Congress included Estela Marrero, a delegate of the Union of Women Cigar Factory Workers, an important sector of working-class women; and Ana Cañizares, a delegate of the Anti-Clerical Federation of Cuba, which had been founded by Julio Antonio Mella in 1924 (Instituto de Historia 1998:218). 

     The evolution of social movements is significantly influenced by the political, economic, and ideological environment, and accordingly, the evolution of the women’s movement in Cuba has been different from its evolution in the United States.  The women’s movement in the United States was formed in the 1840s, and it developed for the next twenty years in a national environment influenced by the abolitionist movement and the subsequent struggle for the protection of the rights of the emancipated slaves.  In this progressive environment, the women’s movement called for full political, economic, and social rights for women, challenging laws and social conventions with respect to women in all areas of life.  But from the 1870s to the beginning of the twentieth century, the nation turned to the Right, developing laws and customs of racial segregation and discrimination, and developing imperialist policies with respect to other lands.  In this conservative ideological context, the women’s movement narrowed its program to the protection of the right to vote, and it de-emphasized calls for a comprehensive transformation of the economic and social position of women.  The US sociologist Stephen Buechler (1990) describes this process as the transformation from a women’s rights movement to a woman suffrage movement.  Later, in the context of the social movements that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, which would culminate in the Revolution of 1968, the women’s movement would rediscover its liberationist roots, and it would be able to affect significant and permanent social changes with respect to women, although it has been somewhat restrained since the restoration of the conservative mood in 1979.  At the same time, consistent with limitations in the development of US popular movements, the evolution of the women’s movement would be characterized by limited integration with movements formed by other popular sectors of African-Americans, Latinos, indigenous peoples, workers, and farmers.

       In contrast, the women’s movement in Cuba emerged at a time of the revitalization of popular revolutionary movements in the 1920s, and it evolved in the context of the continuing popular revolution, which triumphed in 1959.  For both the women’s movement and the various popular sectors that formed the revolution in Cuba, the compelling mutually beneficial political strategy was the integration of women’s demands into the popular struggle.  At the same time, the turn of the popular movement to Marxism-Leninism (see “Mella fuses Martí and Marxism-Leninism” 7/9/2014), with its prior appropriation of the principle of full equal rights for women, gave ideological reinforcement to the integrationist strategy.  Thus, the dynamics in Cuba favored the tendency for the women’s movement to continue its radical demands for the full political, economic, and social rights of women and a social transformation with respect to gender, integrating itself into a general popular struggle that was seeking a fundamental political-economic-social-cultural transformation. 

     With the triumph of the revolution, the principle of gender equality was given high priority in word and in practice, such that women have played an important role, and in some respects a dominant role, in the development of the socialist revolution, particularly in the areas of science, education and health.  The Federation of Cuban Women (FMC) was founded in 1960 by Wilma Espín, a prominent member of Fidel’s July 26 Movement and wife of Raúl Castro.  The FMC organizes woman in neighborhoods throughout Cuba, providing women with an opportunity to discuss their particular needs and concerns, and it has a constitutionally guaranteed voice in the national decision-making process.  With the participation of 85% or 90% of Cuban women over the age of 16, the FMC is today one of the principle mass organizations in Cuba, alongside those of workers, students, and agricultural workers and cooperativists. 

     In some respects, the integrationist orientation of the Cuban women’s movement has made it more conservative than the women’s movements in the North.  Not wanting to provoke rejection by other popular sectors, the women’s movement in Cuba has persistently maintained a cooperative rather than conflictive orientation with the revolutionary movement and leadership and with the revolutionary government; and it has been cautious with respect to potentially divisive issues, such as lesbianism.  Because of its integrationist, cooperative, and cautious approach, it has not generated the popular hostility that the US women’s movement has generated; and it has attained, in cooperation with other popular movements, a radical transformation with respect to gender as well as other social dynamics pertaining to race, class, and imperialism.

      We will be further describing the Cuban Revolution as an integral movement uniting various popular sectors and characterized by high levels of popular participation in subsequent posts.


References

Buechler, Steven M.  1990.  Women’s Movements in the United States.  New Brunswick:  Rutgers University Press.

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, women’s movement, 1920s

Posted July 16, 2014

     We have seen that the first president of the neocolonial republic, Tomás Estrada Palma, adopted policies that deepened the core-peripheral relation between the United States and Cuba and facilitated control by US corporations and banks of Cuban agriculture, industry, commerce, and financial infrastructure (see “A neocolonial republic is born” 7/1/2014).  In 1906, the United States again occupied Cuba, in reaction to violence associated with the reelection of Estrada Palma.  Charles E. Magoon, who had previously governed the Panama Canal Zone, was named to govern the island by President William Howard Taft.  Magoon named the principal leaders of Cuban political parties to government posts, leading to high levels of corruption.  The second US occupation ended in 1909, and constitutional and electoral “democracy” was restored.  The governments of elected presidents from 1909 to 1925 (José Miguel Gómez, 1909-13; Mario García Menocal, 1913-21; Alfredo Zayas, 1921-25) facilitated a deepening of US penetration and control, and they were notorious for their corruption.  As we have seen (“Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/8/2014), the corruption of the neocolonial republic, in which public officials and their friends profited from the expenditure of government funds on projects and public works, was an important factor in stimulating a student movement in the early 1920s.  Corruption is endemic in the neocolonial situation, because many popular leaders and young persons with leadership potential avoid a career in government, understanding that foreign control creates a situation in which there is not the possibility of participating in a project that seeks the independent development of the nation; for many that enter public service, the principal motivation is personal gain.  In the neocolonial situation, a dignified national project is precluded, but personal gain is not (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:46-211).

     In the presidential elections of 1924, Gerardo Machado launched a vigorous campaign full of promises, such as more scrupulous management of public funds; respect for the Constitution and for public opinion; the limitation of the presidency to one term; recognition of the autonomy of the university from the government; the raising of workers’ salaries; and the protection of national industry through tariffs and other measures.  His campaign slogan was “water, roads, and schools.”  The campaign rhetoric of Machado was a departure from the traditional electoral language, and it represented the aspirations of the sector of the bourgeoisie most connected to national industry as well as the petit bourgeoisie.  His candidacy thus enjoyed the support of ample social sectors (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:240-42).

      Machado had extensive ties with the North American financial oligarchy, including the previously mentioned National City Bank (see “Instability in the neocolonial republic” 7/2/20214) and the Bankers Club.  He also had strong ties with Spanish large-scale merchants in Cuba and with the Cuban political class that had emerged to dominate the republic in the period 1902 to 1924.  His governing strategy was to support the interests of all of these sectors as well as popular demands.  Seeking to stabilize sugar prices, he imposed restrictions on sugar production, and he attempted to induce the sugar producing nations in Europe and Japan to also set limits on sugar production.  Seeking to protect Cuban sugar producers from losing land to the large US sugar companies in Cuba, he established temporary restrictions on the development of new sugar plantations and processing plants.  In order to stimulate employment, particularly during the “dead time” in sugar production, the Machado government initiated an extensive program of public works, using funds lent to the government by the Chase National Bank of New York.  The public works plan included the construction of the Central Highway, the National Capital, schools, hospitals, aqueducts, and a sewer system (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:242-49).

     In 1927, the government of Machado also enacted a tariff reform, with the intention of diversifying industry and agriculture.  The reform was modest, seeking to protect certain branches of Cuban production without challenging fundamental US interests in Cuba.  The areas of Cuban production that benefitted included coffee, beer, cornmeal, butter, cheese, cement, matches, fans, starch, furniture, soap, paper, sausage, chocolates, sweets, footwear, lime, putty, bricks, clay tile, straw hats, cigarettes, rope, and bottles.  The tariffs also protected industries that had not yet emerged in Cuba: textile manufacturing; certain lines of milk; petroleum refining; and the manufacture of paints, tires, and chemical and pharmaceutical products.  Some US companies were able to take advantage of the new tariff regulations to establish factories in Cuba in branches of production that had not yet been developed or to establish control of Cuban production in a protected sector.  Accordingly, US companies developed factories in Cuba for the manufacture of paints and pharmaceutical products; Colgate-Palmolive signed an agreement that enabled it to control the production of soap and a line of perfume products in Cuba; and Esso Standard Oil developed a petroleum refinery in Cuba (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:249-51).

     The Machado plan to balance the interests of the international bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie and the demands of the popular sector did not succeed.  World sugar producers did not participate in the control of production, generating a new situation of overproduction and lower prices.  The US reacted by reducing its purchase of Cuban sugar, in accordance with the interests of US sugar producers.  Thus, Cuban income from sugar production declined significantly during 1927 and 1928.  And the protection of national industry and agriculture provided by the Machado plan was not sufficient to generate significant expansion and diversity in production (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:245-53).

     The Machado plan was an attempt to reform the neocolonial system, not to break the neocolonial relation.  Such a plan, which seeks to satisfy elite interests as well as respond to popular demands, can succeed only in favorable moments, such as, in the Cuban case, when the national income generated by sugar is high.  But inasmuch as the neocolonial system involves the appropriation by the core of profits generated by peripheral and semi-peripheral production, the system depends upon the super-exploitation of peripheral and semi-peripheral regions, thus placing inherent limits on the satisfaction of popular demands.  Therefore, popular demands cannot be met through the reform of the neocolonial system, except in the short-term and in favorable moments; the long-term and sustainable satisfaction of popular demands requires the abolition of neocolonialism and the development of a more just and democratic world-system.  Thus, the Machado plan for reform failed; just as would fail other attempts to reform the neocolonial world-system, such as the Latin American import-substitution development project, Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress (see “The Alliance for Progress” 9/26/2013), and Jimmy Carter’s human rights foreign policy (“Jimmy Carter” 10/1/2013). And Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s reformist vision for a peaceful post-World War II neocolonial world-system could not get off the ground, cast aside by the ideology of the Cold War (see “Post-war militarization of economy & society” 9/23/2013).

References

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 

Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Machado

Posted July 17, 2014

     In spite of his promise of reform (see “Machado promises reform” 7/16/2014), the Machado government from the outset encountered popular opposition.  In reaction, Machado turned to repression, including assassinations, imprisonment, and deportations of leaders in worker and student organizations. 

    In the repression of the popular movement, the president was supported by the Congress, the press, and the university administration.  The government approved various repressive decrees: on July 27, 1925, a decree that permitted the deportation of foreign workers; on May 5, 1926, authorization for the mobilization of the Rural Guard in territories where strikes were occurring; and on August 21, 1926, a decree authorizing the granting of licenses to owners of sugar plantations and sugar processing plants to employ private security forces.  On March 28, 1927, the House of Representatives approved an extension of the presidential term from four to six years.  On July 20, 1927, the Congress approved the convocation of a Constitutional Assembly, which was formed on the basis of elections in which less than 10% of the population participated, and which on May 11, 1928, approved a constitutional reform permitting the reelection of the president for a second term of six years.  The three major political parties named Machado as their presidential candidate, so that he was reelected without opposition on November 1, 1928.  The university administration also supported the Machado campaign of repression, expelling students who were involved in the popular movement. Meanwhile, the major newspapers sought to generate popular sentiment against the popular movement, maintaining that, due to the pernicious influence of foreign anarchists, the movement was engaging in terrorist acts.  The press thus combined “red scare” and xenophobic tactics, seeking to tap popular resentment toward the significant immigration of poor peasants from Spain, in order to give legitimacy to repression (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:253-77). 

     The assassinated leaders included: Enrique Varona (see “The Cuban workers’ movement of the 1920s” 7/7/2014), president of a railroad workers union in the province of Camaguey, assassinated on August 19, 1925; Alfredo López, founder of the National Worker Confederation of Cuba (see “The Cuban workers’ movement of the 1920s” 7/7/2014), arrested on July 20, 1926, and tortured and assassinated in prison; Carlos Baliño (see “Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/8/2014), one of the founders of the Communist Party, assassinated on June 18, 1926; Baldomero Duménigo, a well-known railroad workers leader in Cienfuegos, assassinated on August 20, 1926; José Peña Vilaboa, member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and outstanding worker leader, assassinated on March 13, 1927; Julio Antonio Mella, the most important leader of the era and a symbol of connection between the worker and student movements (see “Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/8/2014), assassinated on January 10, 1929, in Mexico City; Santiago Brooks, secretary of the Workers’ Union of the Port of Tarafa, assassinated on November 1, 1929; and Rafael Trejo, founder of the University Student Directorate, shot and killed by police during a student demonstration on September 30, 1930.  Others were killed, many were arrested under false charges, and some left the country (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:253-77).

     In addition to repression, another strategy developed by the Machado government was to form pro-government and pro-imperialist labor organizations, or to convert existing labor organizations to its ends.  Beginning in 1927, Machado used the Cuban Federation of Labor for this purpose.  The Cuban Federation of Labor was affiliated with the Pan-American Confederation of Labor, a mechanism used by the US Department of State to influence worker movements in Latin America.  The Cuban Federation of Labor was not a powerful force in the Cuban workers’ movement, but it did create a degree of division as well as a level of corruption within the movement (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:257).

      In Cuba today, the people believe that there are heroes.  They have come to this conclusion as a result of knowing their history of popular struggle.  No one pretends that these martyrs, the great majority of whom were young men, were saints in their personal conduct; that they all possessed a fully developed understanding of the forces of oppression and exploitation against which they were fighting; or that they were exempt from the socially-accepted prejudices of their time and social location.  But they were committed to a more just world, and they knowingly took great risks as they participated in the activities of revolutionary organizations that sought fundamental social transformation.  They gave of themselves in defense of a just cause, and this courageous conduct makes them heroes.  Today in Cuba, the “works” of the revolution, that is, the hospitals and clinics as well as schools and universities, are named for the martyrs of the revolution.  One can enter any school or clinic and find displayed a brief biography of the martyr for whom it is named.  Those honored represent the various stages of the revolutionary struggle from 1868 to the present, and they sometimes include prominent martyrs from other lands.  In Cuba, there are heroes and martyrs, and they are remembered with a commitment that promises, they will never be forgotten.  For me, a person from the United States, the Cuban recognition and remembrance of heroes is a refreshing contrast to the cynicism of the North and to our disposition to destroy our heroes.

     The fierce repression of the Machado tyranny could not force the end of the popular movement.  It would continue, and it would bring down the Machado government, as we will see in subsequent posts.


References

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Machado, heroism

Posted August 5, 2014

     In various posts on Cuba from  June 12 to  July 17, we have seen: that the conquest and peripheralization of Cuba led to the development of underdevelopment and to the establishment of an economy dependent on the exportation of sugar, tobacco and coffee, based principally on superexploited labor; that the war of independence of 1868-78, led by the Eastern landholding class, was unable to attain its principal goals of independence and the abolition of slavery; that José Martí emerged as a charismatic leader who established a clearer ideological foundation for the revolution, forging a dual focus of anti-imperialist national liberation and the social liberation of the people of all races and classes, and unifying the people for the launching a second war of independence in 1895; that the vision of Martí was eclipsed by the US intervention of 1898, which established the foundation for a neocolonial republic and the conversion of the Cuban bourgeoisie into a figurehead bourgeoisie under US tutelage; that the popular revolution became revitalized in the 1920s, further developing the vision of Martí in the context of the neocolonial republic, including the first steps, taken by Julio Antonio Mella, toward the synthesis of Martí with Marxism-Leninism; and that the Machado government responded to the renewed movement with harsh repression, transforming Cuban “democracy” into tyranny.  Having devoted several recent posts to developments with respect to the relations of China and Russia with the Latin American process of political change and regional integration, we now return to the story of the historical development Cuban Revolution.

     Beginning in 1930, new popular political actors emerged who were influenced by Marxism and were tied to the Cuban Communist Party (PCC), which had been established by Julio Antonio Mella and Carlos Baliño López in 1925.  They brought the PCC to a position of prominence in the popular revolution during the period 1930-32.  The most outstanding of the new leaders was Rubén Martínez Villena, who became the de facto leader of the Cuban Communist Party and the National Worker Confederation of Cuba (CNOC) after the exile and assassination of Mella and the assassination of Alfredo López (see “Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/8/2014 and “The Cuban Workers’ Movement of the 1920” 7/7/2014).  Martínez Villena was a poet whose verses of 1923 had described the “moral blindness,” the “inertia of the soul,” and a “profound sensation of the impossible” that characterized the neocolonial republic, but they also evoked the sun that illuminates the revolutionary imperative that would cast aside the fatalistic sense of the impossible, driven by a “yearning for the salvation of the beloved land” (Arboleya 2008:96; Vitier 2006:125-28).

     PCC, CNOC and other organizations tied to both called for a general strike for March 20, 1930.  Under the slogan “Down with Machado,” the demands announced by PCC/CNOC included: the revocation of a government measure that declared CNOC illegal; the release of workers who had been detained for promoting the general strike; respect for the right of workers to organize and to strike; freedom of press and of association; the limit of the working day to eight hours; and measures in support of the unemployed, including an assistance payment, suspension of evictions and rent and debt payments, and aid for transportation, meals and lodging  (Instituto de Cuba 1998:288; Vitier 2006:137).

     In spite of the always present fear of reprisal, two hundred thousand workers and employees responded to the call, and the economic activities of Havana and various other cities were completely paralyzed for twenty-four hours.  The success of the strike demonstrated the prestige that Martínez Villena and the PCC had attained among the popular classes, overcoming obstacles created by the extreme repression of the government (see “‘Democracy’ becomes tyranny” 7/17/2014).  Further demonstrating that it was a strong political force, the PCC led mass demonstrations in Havana and in other cities in commemoration of the First of May (Instituto de Cuba 1998:289).

      In addition to addressing concrete demands of workers, the platform of the PCC embraced without ambiguity the demands of peasants and agricultural workers for land and for the cessation of evictions.  This enabled it to have success in the rural areas in the organization of leagues and committees of peasants and agricultural workers (Instituto de Cuba 1998:296).

     The general strategy of the PCC was to form organizations of workers and peasants in urban and rural areas and to organize strikes and demonstrations in order to develop a popular, democratic and anti-imperialist revolution that would evolve to a socialist revolution led by the working class.  Its goal was to establish a socialist government, controlled by popular councils composed of workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors (Instituto de Cuba 1998:287). 

     In addition to the PCC and CNOC, other organizations emerged during 1930-32.  In the fall of 1930, the University Student Directorate (DEU) was formed, and it organized student demonstrations.  On September 30, it issued a reformist manifesto, “To the People of Cuba,” which condemned the crimes of the Machado tyranny against workers, students, and political opponents; denounced the assassination of Julio Antonio Mella; criticized the corruption of the regime; expressed disapproval of the growth of the public debt; called for the restoration of constitutional democracy; embraced the principles of university reform; and called for a struggle against the Machado tyranny.  Its insurrectional practices included strikes, student demonstrations, underground propaganda, sabotage, and execution of government dignitaries and henchmen (Instituto de Cuba 1998:289-90; Vitier 2006:137-38; Arboleya 2008:98).    

     In spite of its use of the tactics of armed struggle, the goals of DEU were reformist rather than revolutionary.  As a result, in the beginning of 1931, leftist students split from DEU to form the Student Left Wing (AIE).  AIE called the students to an anti-imperialist revolution of national and social liberation, a revolution directed by the proletariat in alliance with the peasants and the radical petit bourgeoisie (Instituto de Cuba 1998:290; Vitier 2006:137; Arboleya 2008:98).       

     Women’s organizations also actively participated in the popular uprising against the Machado tyranny.  The Feminist National Alliance established the right of women to vote as its principal slogan.  In May 1930, it was reorganized as the Labor Union of Women, led by Ofelia Dominguez and Bertha Darder.  A few months later, Oppositionist Women was formed, which included prominent leaders of the women’s movement, including Pilar Jorge de Tella, although it primarily had a reformist orientation.  On January 8, 1931, the police violently broke up a demonstration of women in front of the Presidential Palace.  After that date, the repressive brutality of the Machado regime made no gender distinction, and many women were included among the detained and, in some cases, the assassinated (Instituto de Cuba 1998:290-291). 

     Many intellectuals, professors, and professionals also were opposed to the Machado tyranny, the great symbol of which was Enrique José Varona.   Most professors, for example, adhered to the positions of DEU, although this organization, as has been noted, was reformist.  Similarly, most professional organizations adopted positions of reformist opposition to the Machado government (Instituto de Cuba 1998:291).

     Thus, there emerged by 1931 a national consciousness against the Machado tyranny, including both revolutionary and reformist tendencies.  During the course of the year, strikes and demonstrations were daily occurrences (Instituto de Cuba 1998:291).

     There also was a reformist opposition composed of leaders of traditional political parties that sought to bring down the government of Machado by means of armed struggle.  This group, which called itself the “Revolutionary Junta of New York,” included Mario García Menocal, the third president of the neocolonial republic.  In spite of its use of the word “revolutionary” in its name, and in spite of its use of the means of armed struggle, its goals were reformist.  It sought through the armed struggle to induce the United States to withdraw its support of the Machado tyranny and to overthrow the Machado government, with the intention of establishing a “democratic” government that would not be detrimental to US interests and that would close the road to popular revolution.  In August 1931, the Revolutionary Junta organized an armed expedition that disembarked on the north coast of the western province of Pinar del Río, and it coordinated uprisings in the central and eastern provinces.  But the expedition soon surrendered to government troops without offering resistance, and the other uprisings were quickly put down (Instituto de Cuba 1998:292-93; Arboleya 2008:98).

     In addition, ABC, a fascist organization, was formed by a group of intellectuals and lawyers in August or September of 1931.  It was opposed to the Machado government and to the popular movement. Its leaders were admirers of Mussolini, and its program was influenced by Italian fascism.  It was organized in secret cells, and its methods included assassinations of government leaders, sabotage, and propaganda, activities that led to a certain degree of support among the popular classes, particularly the middle class (Instituto de Cuba 1998:293; Arboleya 2008:98).

     Thus, the panorama in Cuba in the period 1930-32 was characterized by a “democratically” elected but brutally repressive government, a popular opposition that was mostly revolutionary but that included reformist elements, a bourgeois reformist opposition that launch an aborted armed struggle, and the emergence of fascism.  The neocolonial republic was in full crisis, and the inherent contradictions of neocolonialism were fully exposed.

      In the context of this panorama, the most outstanding popular leader of the 1930s, Antonio Guiteras, would emerge, as we will discuss in the next post.
 

References

Arboleya, Jesús.  2008.  La Revolución del Otro Mundo: Un análisis histórico de la Revolución Cubana.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 

Vitier, Cintio.  2006.  Ese Sol del Mundo Moral.  La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Machado, PCC, CNOC, DEU, AIE, ABC

Posted August 6, 2014

     Among those who participated in the armed insurrection led by the Revolutionary Junta of New York was Antonio Guiteras Holmes, who had been the leader of a Student Revolutionary Directorate formed in 1927.  As part of the actions of the Revolutionary Junta in August 1931 (see “The Cuban popular revolution of 1930-32” 8/4/2014), Guiteras and his followers engaged government troops in a brief combat in a plantation in the eastern province of Oriente.  The rebels suffered three casualties, and they were captured and imprisoned.  During his four months in prison, Guiteras worked with Felipe Fuentes in winning followers among the prisoners.  Fuentes was a communist leader from Oriente who was the founder of the Student Left Wing (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:292). 

     Following the failure of the insurrection led by the Revolutionary Junta of New York, Guiteras severed ties with the Junta and formed an independent organization, the Revolutionary Union, in order to develop his own revolutionary project.  Guiteras was influenced by a number of revolutionary movements and ideas, including: Cuban revolutionary theory and practice, in which Martí and Mella were the most influential leaders/intellectuals (see “José Martí” 6/26/2014; “Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/8/2014); the Russian Revolution; the Mexican Revolution; the struggle of Augusto César Sandino in Nicaragua; the Irish independence movement; the ideas of Antonio Blanqui on the role of the revolutionary vanguard; the ideas of the French socialist Jean Jacques Jaurés; and the analyses of Marx and Lenin.  The Revolutionary Union was organized in the last four months of 1931, and it united a number of existing small insurrectional groups in the eastern and central provinces.  Its members included professionals, intellectuals, artisans, service employees, workers, farmers, veterans of the independence war, and students.  It advocated a popular, democratic, agrarian, and anti-imperialist revolution of national liberation that would create conditions for the gradual construction of a socialist society in Cuba (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:293-94; Arboleya 2008:99). 

     The strategy of the Revolutionary Union was urban and rural armed struggle, utilizing such tactics as sabotage, execution of government representatives and police officers, the taking of military barracks, and guerrilla actions in the countryside.  Guiteras conceived a plan for the taking of the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba, with the intention of arming the people and creating a guerrilla struggle in the eastern mountains, but the plan was frustrated by the maneuvers of the army.  On April 29, 1933, the Revolutionary Union took the barracks of San Luis, but Guiteras and his followers were forced to withdraw in the face of an army counterattack, although they were able to avoid capture.  In the second half of 1933, small guerrilla units, composed principally of peasants, emerged in the eastern and central provinces of the country, under the direction of Guiteras and the Revolutionary Union, and they continued to operate until the fall of Machado on August 12, 1933 (Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:294, 297; Arboleya 2008:99).

     The Revolutionary Union was a significant development.  Like the PCC, it had revolutionary goals, for it sought to develop a revolution of national and social liberation and to establish a socialist society ruled by popular sectors.  But unlike the PCC, it turned to armed struggle, as had the reformist Revolutionary Junta.  However, unlike the Revolutionary Junta, it was able to sustain armed struggle in rural areas for a period of months.

      In spite of the similarity of goals of the Communist Party of Cuba and the Revolutionary Union, the two were moving in different directions with respect to strategy, creating a division within the revolutionary sector of the popular movement.  Such divisions in revolutionary popular movements must be overcome, if the revolution is to triumph, but in this phase of the Cuban revolution, it was unable to do so.  We will return in a subsequent post to this issue.

      Although the Communist Party of Cuba did not support armed struggle during the Revolution of 1930-33, various organizations, both reformist and revolutionary, adopted the strategy.  The use of armed force had been central to the Cuban political process, practiced historically by both the forces of domination and the forces of liberation.  As a result, by the 1930s the use of armed force came to be defined as a legitimate strategy of popular struggle.  The complete lack of legitimacy of the Machado government, as a result of its repressive tactics and its representation of foreign interests, also was a factor in legitimating the strategy of armed struggle in the eyes of many of the popular leaders and many of the people.

      The necessity and the legitimacy of armed force in revolutionary processes is one of the lessons that we must learn as we seek to understand revolutionary processes of the past, present and future. But we must be careful to observe the particular subjective and objective conditions.  We must recognize that armed struggle is legitimate in many revolutionary contexts, but not all, for it depends on particular conditions.  The particular conditions for armed struggle were present in the Cuban neocolonial republic.  But they were not present, for example, in the United States in 1968, and they are not present in the United States today.  The errors of the Revolution of 1968 in the United States and the possibilities for revolution in the United States in the future are themes that we will discuss in future posts.

     Armed struggle has been integral to celebrated revolutions that have taken power, such as the Haitian, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, and Sandinista Revolutions.  However, we must keep clearly in mind that revolution is not synonymous with armed struggle. Revolution is the taking of power, and armed struggle is merely a strategy to this end, but other strategies can be more effective, depending on particular conditions.  In the cases of Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, revolutions took power by using mechanisms of representative democracy, although their experiences have demonstrated the need for effective civilian control of the armed forces, once power is taken.  In general, revolutions show that the taking of power requires creative strategies, for those who have power have many resources at their disposal.  The taking of power cannot be reduced to an imitation of armed struggles that have successfully taken power in certain particular conditions. 

      The emergence in 1933 of armed struggle directed by the Revolutionary Union deepened the crisis of the Machado regime, which already had been in crisis as a result of the organization of popular opposition by the Communist Party of Cuba, the emergence of reformist and revolutionary opposition among students and women, and the emergence of a bourgeois reformist opposition that had launched an aborted armed struggle (see “The Cuban popular revolution of 1930-32” 8/4/2014).  The United States, concerned that its interests would be compromised by the coming to power of the popular revolution, began to search for a way to end the Machado regime but to preserve a neocolonial republic in accordance with its interests, as we will see in the next post.


References

Arboleya, Jesús.  2008.  La Revolución del Otro Mundo: Un análisis histórico de la Revolución Cubana.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 

Vitier, Cintio.  2006.  Ese Sol del Mundo Moral.  La Habana: Editorial Félix Varela.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Guiteras

Posted August 7, 2014

     The inability of Cuba and the world producers of sugar to control production in order to stabilize prices (see “Machado and the promise of reform” 7/16/2014); the higher tariffs imposed by the United States on Cuban sugar; the increasing use by the United States of sugar produced in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines; and the global economic crisis of the Great Depression had a strong impact on Cuban production and export of sugar and had disastrous consequences for the economic and social situation of the country.  The Cuban exportation of crude sugar to the United States declined from 3,752,410 tons in 1929 to 1,340,000 tons in 1933, so that it was only slightly more than one-third in 1933 what it had been in 1929; and the Cuban share of the US sugar market fell from 51.9% in 1929 to 25.4% in 1933.  The Cuban national income from sugar nearly was cut in half from 1929 to 1933, from 571 million pesos to 294 million.  The purchasing power per capita was reduced more than half, from 151 pesos in 1929 to 71 in 1933, adjusted for inflation (Instituto de Cuba 1998:282-86).

     The deteriorating economic situation fueled the emerging popular revolution (see “The Cuban workers’ movement of the 1920s” 7/7/2014; “Julio A. Mella and the student movement” 7/8/2014; “The Cuban women’s movement of the 1920s” 7/11/2014; “The Cuban popular revolution of 1930-32” 8/4/2014; “Guiteras and the Revolutionary Union” 8/5/2014).  The neocolonial republic was in full economic, political, and social crisis.

      Franklin Delano Roosevelt ascended to the presidency of the United States in January 1933, at the depths of the Great Depression.  He launched a significant change in direction with respect to US domestic policies, in that he turned to strong state action in order to reduce unemployment and social inequality.  With respect to Latin America, however, he continued the imperialist policies of his predecessors (see “Imperialism and the FDR New Deal” 9/20/2013).  He sought to reactivate and increase the sale of US manufactured products in Latin America and the purchase of Latin American raw materials by the United States.  His strategy for this revitalization of the core-peripheral commercial relation, weakened by the Great Depression, was to negotiate trade agreements with Latin American governments.  However, because of the emergence of anti-imperialist movements in Latin America, he sought to avoid direct US military intervention and to present US policy with a more democratic face, proclaiming that the United States desired to be a “Good Neighbor” (Instituto de Cuba 1998:297-98). 

      Roosevelt named his personal friend Benjamin Sumner Welles as US ambassador to Cuba.  Welles’ task was to bring about the end of the political conflict and the restoration of constitutional authority by means of personal mediation and without US military intervention (see “‘Democracy’ becomes tyranny” 7/17/2014).  Welles arrived in Cuba in May 1933, and tyrannical President Gerardo Machado was obligated to accept the mediation of the US ambassador, because of pressure from US companies in Cuba as well as the Cuban national bourgeoisie. Welles proposed the restoration of constitutional guarantees and freedom for political prisoners; the holding of elections in 1934, with Machado staying in office until May 20, 1935, when he would be replaced by the newly-elected president; the cessation of anti-government activities by the fascist (ABC) and reformist opposition; amnesty for members of the Machado government for crimes committed by the regime; and a clampdown on the revolutionary opposition (Instituto de Cuba 1998:298).

     The reformist opposition and ABC accepted Welles’ proposals and suspended all activities in opposition to the regime.  However, the revolutionary opposition, consisting of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC), the National Worker Confederation of Cuba (CNOC), and the Revolutionary Union, firmly rejected the proposals.  After some hesitation, the reformist University Student Directorate (DEU) also rejected Welles’ proposals (Instituto de Cuba 1998:298-99).

      Ignoring the mediation of Welles, the people continued the offensive.  In August 1933, a strike by workers in bus companies in Havana rapidly became a general strike, provoked by arbitrary measures taken against the strikers by the city government.  The general strike was organized by PCC and CNOC, which put forth social and economic demands as well as a demand for the removal of Machado from power.  Machado proposed acceptance of the social and economic demands but not his departure.  The leadership of PCC and CNOC recommended acceptance of Machado’s proposal, but the workers, meeting in general assemblies, decided to continue the general strike until the dictator be overthrown.  The leaders of PCC and CNOC conceded to the workers’ desires, and the general strike continued (Instituto de Cuba 1998:299). 

      Concerned by the possible triumph of the popular revolution, and fearful that the national situation could provoke a US military intervention, which could lead to the dissolution of the Cuban armed forces, high-ranking army officers rebelled on August 12, compelling Machado to resign.  That same day, Machado and a good part of his clique departed for the Bahamas.  The plans of the US ambassador for an orderly transition to a post-Machado government and the re-establishment of order to the neocolonial republic were ruined by the force of the people (Instituto de Cuba 1998:299-300).

     The people had forced the tyrant to flee.  But this did not mean that the people would be in control.  The maneuvering of the Cuban political class and the US ambassador would continue, as we will see in the next post.


References

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Machado, FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Good Neighbor

Posted August 8, 2014

     With the flight of Machado on August 12, 1933 (see “FDR and US mediation in Cuba” 8/7/2014), US ambassador Benjamin Sumner Wells sought to establish a government that would be capable of frustrating the popular revolution.  He pressured the Congress to designate as president Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, a bland politician who possessed the merit of being the son of the first President of the Republic of Cuba in Arms, established in 1869 during the first Cuban war of independence (see “The Cuban war of independence of 1868” 6/17/2014).  In accordance with the desires of the US ambassador, Céspedes was designated president on August 13.  The Céspedes government was supported by the national estate bourgeoisie as well as the reformist opposition to Machado.  In addition, the fascist ABC, with paramilitary structures of direct action, was an important social base of support.  However, inasmuch as the Cespédes government had been established by the US ambassador, it was lacking in moral authority in the eyes of the people.  The Céspedes government tried to take advantage of popular hostility to Machado by setting aside the changes that the Machado regime had made in the Constitution, placing the Constitution of 1901 in full vigor. But the workers continued with the wave of strikes, directed by committees elected by the masses, putting forth economic, social and political demands.  At the same time, using distinct strategies, the Communist Party of Cuba, the Revolutionary Union, and the University Student Directorate sought to bring down the Céspedes government.  The Céspedes government lasted only three weeks, and it was characterized by vacillations.  It was a moment of anarchy, including executions of Machado government officials by the enraged people (Instituto de Cuba 1998:300-2).

     In the Cuban army and navy, there had emerged a caste division between the officers, who proceeded from the upper and middle classes; and the non-commissioned officers, soldiers, and sailors, who were from the lower classes.  The officers lived in a privileged manner, and they were abusive toward non-commissioned officers and enlisted men, whose salaries were low.  In addition, non-commissioned officers were disheartened by the role that the army had played during the Machado regime, lowering its prestige among workers and peasants.  As a result, revolutionary and reformist ideas permeated the ranks of enlisted men, and there were significant contacts between them and Guiteras, the Revolutionary Union, and the University Student Directorate (Instituto de Cuba 1998:302-3).

     On September 4, 1933, the sergeants, corporals and enlisted men seized control of the military base of Columbia.  Along with leaders of the University Student Directorate and some university professors, they formed the Revolutionary Group of Cuba, which declared itself to be the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Cuba.  It announced a program that reflected the reformist proposals of the University Student Directorate: the convoking of a Constitutional Assembly; affirmation of the principles of representative democracy; the establishment of special tribunals for the trial and punishment of officials of the Machado government; protection of the life and property of citizens and foreigners; and recognition of the good faith and patriotism of the members of the Céspedes government.  The Revolutionary Group received the support of the units of the army, navy and police throughout the country, so that chiefs and officers were replaced by sergeants, corporals, and soldiers across the nation (Instituto de Cuba 1998:303-4).

     Among the members of the Revolutionary Group was Sergeant Fulgencio Batista.  He suggested that the key leaders of the rebellion in Columbia, located in Havana, travel to the cities of Matanzas and Pinar del Río, in order to control the uncertain situation in the barracks of these cities.  This enabled Batista to personally conduct negotiations in the early morning of September 5, with respect to the first public proclamation by the recently created Revolutionary Group.  The “Proclamation to the People of Cuba” was signed by sixteen civilians, two ex-military men, and only one military man in active service, Batista, who signed the document with the self-designated title of “Revolutionary Chief Sergeant of all the Armed Forces of the Republic.”  Later that same day, Batista issued a public statement in the name of the armed forces, signed by him, and he met with the US ambassador.  In this way, Batista came to be identified in public opinion as the leader of the sergeant’s revolt.  When the other leaders returned to the capital, they decided to accept the facts that had transpired, including the new prominent role of Batista, rather than undermine the sergeant’s revolt through an internal struggle for power (Instituto de Cuba 1998:303-4).

      On September 5, the Revolutionary Group established a collective presidency of five persons, implementing a proposal to this effect that had been put forward a month earlier by the University Student Directorate.  The “Pentateuch,” as it was called by the people, could not function, because ideological divisions among the five prevented the emergence of consensus.  So the Pentateuch was dissolved on September 10, and Dr. Ramón Grau San Martín was named President. Thus began the “government of 100 days,” which was the only government of the neocolonial republic to be established without US approval, and which during its brief existence enacted progressive reforms, as we will discuss in the next post (Instituto de Cuba 1998:  304-5). 

     During its five days of life, the Pentateuch promoted Batista to the rank of coronel (Instituto de Cuba 1998:304-5).  The era of Batista had begun. 


References

Instituto de Historia de Cuba. 1998.  La neocolonia.  La Habana: Editora Política. 


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Cuban Revolution, neocolonial republic, Batista