Global Learning
  • Home
  • Defenders of Cuban Socialism
    • UN Charter
    • Declaration of Human Rights
    • Bandung
    • New International Economic Order
    • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Substack editorial column
  • New Cold War articles
  • Friends of Socialist China articles
  • Global Research articles
  • Counterpunch articles
  • Cuba and the world-system
    • Table of Contents and chapter summaries
    • About the author
    • Endorsements
    • Obtaining your copy
  • Blog ¨The View from the South¨
    • Blog Index
    • Posts in reverse chronological order
  • The Voice of Third World Leaders
    • Asia >
      • Ho Chi Minh
      • Xi Jinping, President of China
    • Africa >
      • Kwame Nkrumah
      • Julius Nyerere
    • Latin America >
      • Fidel Castro
      • Hugo Chávez
      • Raúl Castro >
        • 55th anniversary speech, January 1, 1914
        • Opening Speech, CELAC
        • Address at G-77, June 15, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, July 5, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, December 20, 2014
        • Speech on Venezuela at ALBA, 3-17-2015
        • Declaration of December 18, 2015 on USA-Cuba relations
        • Speech at ALBA, March 5, 2018
      • Miguel Díaz-Canel >
        • UN address, September 26, 2018
        • 100th annivesary, CP of China
      • Evo Morales >
        • About Evo Morales
        • Address to G-77 plus China, January 8, 2014
        • Address to UN General Assembly, September 24, 2014
      • Rafael Correa >
        • About Rafael Correa
        • Speech at CELAC 1/29/2015
        • Speech at Summit of the Americas 2015
      • Nicolás Maduro
      • Cristina Fernández
      • Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations >
        • Statement at re-opening of Cuban Embassy in USA, June 20, 2015
        • The visit of Barack Obama to Cuba
        • Declaration on parliamentary coup in Brazil, August 31, 2016
        • Declaration of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba on Venezuela, April 13, 2019
      • ALBA >
        • Declaration of ALBA Political Council, May 21, 2019
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 17, 2015
        • Declaration on Venezuela, April 10, 2017
      • Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) >
        • Havana Declaration 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 26
    • Martin Luther King, Jr.
    • International >
      • Peoples’ Summit 2015
      • The Group of 77 >
        • Declaration on a New World Order 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela 3/26/2015
      • BRICS
      • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Readings
    • Charles McKelvey, Cuba in Global Context
    • Piero Gleijeses, Cuba and Africa
    • Charles McKelvey, Chávez and the Revolution in Venezuela
    • Charles McKelvey, The unfinished agenda of race in USA
    • Charles McKelvey, Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist Revolutionary
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Recommended books on Amazon.com; click on image of book to connect

The US intervention in Cuba of 1898

9/16/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted June 28, 2014

     With the death in combat of José Martí in 1895, Tomás Estrada Palma assumed the direction of the Cuban Revolutionary Party, which during the independence war of 1895-98 functioned as a government outside the country parallel to the revolutionary forces in Cuba.  Estrada Palma is described by Jesús Arboleya as having been an “obscure but respected figure” who had participated in the independence struggle since 1868.  However, he did not share the anti-imperialist perspective of Martí (see “José Martí” 6/26/2014), and he considered that once the Cuban people attained its independence, annexation by the United States would be an acceptable democratic option (Arboleya 2008:61).

     During the war, the revolutionary forces, directed by Generals Máximo Gómez and Antonio Maceo, adopted a strategy of burning the sugar fields in order to destroy the production and commerce that sustained the colonial regime.  Responding to this strategy, the colonial government placed the rural population in concentration camps in towns and cities, with the result that 200,000 persons died from malnutrition and disease.  It was a bloody war, resulting in the death of one-third of the Spanish soldiers and one-fifth of the revolutionary troops.  The war was unsustainable for Spain, as a result of popular opposition in Spain, provoked by the high level of casualties; escalating government debts caused by the war; and the destruction of the Cuban economy.  By 1898, Cuban revolutionary forces controlled the countryside and the Spanish army controlled the most important population centers, which were under siege by Cuban forces.  The revolution was approaching triumph (Arboleya 2008:59-60, 63).  

     Although Martí had believed that the Cuban national bourgeoisie would join the independence struggle as the best option in defense of its “diminished interests,” in fact the national bourgeoisie came to the support of the counterrevolution, and it did not abandon the colonialist cause until 1898, when the military incapacity of Spain and the impossibility of its restoring the Cuban economy became evident.  Many members of the Cuban national bourgeoisie abandoned the country and pressured Estrada Palma to support a US military intervention, which was being proposed by some sectors in the United States, because of the threat that a popular revolutionary triumph posed to US imperialist intentions.  Estrada Palma came to support US intervention, without insisting upon any guarantees of representation of the Cuban people or the Cuban revolutionary military forces in an independent Cuba (Arboleya 2008:60-63; Barcia, García and Torres-Cuevas 1996:519-23).

     Cuban scholars call the Spanish-Cuban-American War what US historians have called the Spanish-American War.  Cuban historians emphasize that the support provided by Cuban revolutionary forces was indispensable for the US taking of Santiago de Cuba, the only bastion of importance in which US interventionist forces were able to attain control.  The United States proceeded to negotiate a peace treaty with Spain without the participation of the Cubans.  The agreement ceded Cuba to the United States; it prohibited the entrance of Cuban revolutionary forces into the cities, and it contained no terms for the transfer of power to the Cuban revolutionary forces.  Estrada Palma supported the treaty and persuaded the revolutionary military chiefs to accept it, presenting the United States as an ally of the Cuban revolutionary movement (Arboleya 2008:262-64; Instituto de Historia de Cuba 1998:3).

     In this historic moment of US maneuvers in pursuit of imperialist interests, with the collusion of Estrada Palma and the Cuban national bourgeoisie, the absence of the advanced understanding of Martí was a critical factor.  Máximo Gómez wrote in his diary, “It is a difficult moment, the most difficult since the Revolution was initiated.  Now Martí would have been able to serve the country; this was his moment” (quoted in Arboleya 2008:63).  Also critical was the death in combat in 1898 of Antonio Maceo.  Maceo unified the most radical sectors of the Revolution as a result of the enormous prestige in which he was held by the popular sectors, rooted in his refusal to accept the Pact of Zanjón, which ended the first Cuban war of independence of 1868-78 without recognizing Cuban independence and freeing only those slaves who had fought in the war of independence (see “The Cuban war of independence of 1868” 6/17/2014).  Maceo had organized in 1878 a continued political-military resistance in the eastern territory that sought to attain independence and the total abolition of slavery, which came to be known as the Protest of Baraguá (Arboleya 2008:59, 61, 63, 68; Barcia, García and Torres-Cuevas 1996:140-49, 503-4).   

     The US interventionist government was established on January 1, 1899 under the command of Major General John Rutter Brooke.  It proceeded to dismantle the Cuban revolutionary army and revolutionary institutions, in spite of the opposition of Gómez; establish structures of representative democracy based on the US model, ignoring the alternative vision of Martí; and facilitate US commercial, financial, and ideological penetration of the island, displacing the English, Spanish and Cuban bourgeoisie.  We will discuss these first steps in the establishment of a neocolonial republic under US domination in the following posts.


References

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

Barcia, María del Carmen, Gloria García and Eduardo Torres-Cuevas, Eds.  1996.  Historia de Cuba: La Colonia: Evolución Socioeconómica y formación nacional de los orígenes hasta 1867.   La Habana: Editora Política. 

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, US intervention, 1898

0 Comments

The “democratic” constitution of 1901

9/15/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted June 30, 2014

     A necessary precondition for the establishment of a republic in Cuba under US control was the dismantling of Cuban revolutionary institutions.  Tomás Estrada Palma had dissolved the Cuban Revolutionary Party that had been established by Martí (see “José Martí” 6/26/2014) on December 21, 1898.  A Representative Assembly, elected in zones controlled by the Government in Arms, constituted the civil authority of the revolution.  But its authority was not recognized by the US military government, and it lost the confidence of the people by seeking to dismiss Máximo Gómez from his position of Chief of the Liberator Army.  The Representative Assembly dissolved itself on April 4, 1899.  Rather than demobilizing, Máximo Gómez kept the revolutionary army quartered, maintaining that Cuba had not yet attained independence.  Gómez considered the possibility of mobilizing the Cuban revolutionary forces, in spite of possible negative repercussions, such as an expanded US occupation and possibly US annexation of the island.  However, in light of divisions and distrust between Gómez and the civilian leaders and the absence of a consensus to continue the armed struggle, he recognized that this was not possible.  The revolutionary army was demobilized, and the soldiers were compensated with funds donated by the US government. Thus, during 1898 and 1899, the political party, representative government and the army, which constituted the three principal revolutionary institutions, were dismantled (Arboleya 2008:66-68; Instituto de Cuba 1998:7-11).

     On July 25, 1900, the US military governor convoked elections for a Constitutional Assembly.  Suffrage was limited to men who had financial resources or were literate or who had served in the liberation army, thus excluding all women and two-thirds of adult men (Pérez 182).  The elections were held on September 15, 1900; thirty-one delegates from three recently formed political parties were elected.  Inasmuch as the revolutionary institutions had ceased to exist, the development of a revolutionary plan of action with respect to the Constitutional Assembly was not possible.  Political games were played, and candidates without commitment to Cuban self-determination vis-à-vis US imperialist intentions presented themselves as independentistas.  The Constitutional Assembly was a confusing mix, with ideological divisions within parties and alliances across parties.  And there was the pressure established by the continuous US threat of a permanent military presence, if the results were not in accordance with US interests (Arboleya 2008:67-69; Instituto de Cuba 1998:24-27; Pérez 1995:182).  Because of these dynamics, the Constitution did not reflect the experiences of the Cuban national liberation struggle, and it had a “made in the USA” character.  As Arboleya writes,
“The Constitutional Assembly was the burial of the Republic of Martí.  It created a government whose structure copied in its fundamentals the North American model.  It recognized the liberal principles of individual liberties and guarantees for citizens, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion.  Nothing was said in relation to social rights, nor of the obligations of the state in the economy and in the protection and aid of citizens, nor of the strategy that ought to be followed with respect to foreign capital, the monopolies or the large estates” (Arboleya 2008:69).
     The US government, however, was not satisfied with the results.  It insisted that the Constitutional Assembly approve an amendment that would grant the United States the right to intervene in Cuba.  The United States insisted upon the Platt Amendment, as it would be called, in order to demonstrate to European powers, especially Great Britain, its determination to establish economic control over Latin America, and to show to US corporations its political will to protect their investments from foreign competition.  Under threat of continuous US military occupation, the Constitutional Assembly approved the Platt Amendment on June 12, 1901 by a vote of 16 to 11, with four abstentions (Arboleya 2008:70-71; Instituto de Cuba 1998:28-34). 

     The political dynamics in Cuba in the period 1898 to 1901 reflect a problem that is still with us.  The bourgeoisie has particular interests, and it makes assumptions and formulates concepts with respect to national and global reality in a form that is profoundly influenced by its particular interests.  At the same time, the bourgeoisie has substantial impact on the public discourse, influencing the understandings of the popular sectors, and distorting popular understanding in a form that is functional for bourgeois interests.  In the case of Cuba, the national bourgeoisie consisted principally of the sugar-producing bourgeoisie, the commercial bourgeoisie, and the large landholders, who had an interest in developing a core-peripheral relation with the United States. They played a pernicious role in generating confusions and distortions in the public discourse, functioning to support the maneuvers of the US interventionist military government in establishing structures that provide the foundation for US neocolonial domination (Instituto de Cuba 1998:3-5). 

     In order for the people to overcome the distorting influences of the bourgeoisie, charismatic leaders are essential.   Charismatic leaders are able to discern what is true and right in relation to the needs of the people and the sovereignty of the nation, and they are able to politically unify the people in defense of its interests.  In the critical period of 1898 to 1901 in Cuba, José Martí and Antonio Maceo, who together could have played an important role in forging a political-military struggle in opposition to US imperialism, were gone. Committed revolutionary leaders, such as Máximo Gómez, did their best in a difficult situation, but it was more than they could manage.

      Thus, the newly independent Cuban nation was established on a Constitution that reflected the political experience of the United States and the interests of the US national elite, not on a constitution based in the historic Cuban struggle for national liberation.  The basic political structures were in place for the emergence of a neocolonial republic.(For discussion of the limitations of the US Constitution with respect to popular democracy in the United States, see “American counterrevolution, 1777-87” 11/4/2013 and “Balance of power” 11/5/2013). 


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.

Pérez, Jr., Louis A.  1995.  Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution, 2nd edition.  New York:  Oxford University Press. 


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, Constitution of 1901, Platt Amendment
0 Comments

A neocolonial republic is born

9/14/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted July 1, 2014

     Following the approval of the Cuban Constitution of 1901, mechanisms were established for elections.   Máximo Gómez, always sensitive to the fact that he was Dominican, declined to be a candidate for president, in spite of popular clamor in support of the Chief of the Liberation Army.  Tomás Estrada Palma and Bartolomé Masó emerged as the leading candidates.  Both had been involved in the independence struggle since 1868.  Estrada Palma was a believer in limited government and laissez faire economics, and he was an admirer of the United States.  As we have seen, he assumed the leadership of the Cuban Revolutionary Party upon the death of Martí in 1895, and he dissolved this important revolutionary institution on December 21, 1898 (“The ‘democratic’ constitution of 1901” 6/30/2014).  In contrast, Masó was an opponent of the Pact of Zanjón of 1878 and the Platt Amendment.  He was suspicious of US intentions, and he demanded the absolute independence of Cuba.  US military governor Leonard Wood, acting in accordance with US interests, supported Estrada Palma.  He filled the electoral commission with Estrada supporters and took other steps that created suspicion of electoral fraud.  In light of this situation, Masó withdrew, with the result that the only candidate on the ballot was Estrada Palma, who received votes from 47% of the electorate (Instituto de Cuba 1998:37-41).   

     Jesus Arboleya maintains that the election of Estrada Palma was a reflection of the political vacuum that resulted from the dismantling of revolutionary institutions and the emergence of amorphous groups that formed alliances on the basis of particular interests, personal loyalties, or interests of a local character.  These dynamics made impossible the formation of political parties with clearly defined analyses and programs of action, and they facilitated a political fragmentation that the United States was able to exploit in order to attain its imperialist interests.  And he maintains that this became the norm of Cuban politics during the following fifty years, and it is “the key element in understanding the intrinsic limitations of the representative democracy of the neocolonial state in Cuba” (2008:75).

     Tomás Estrada Palma was inaugurated as president of the formally politically independent republic of Cuba on May 20, 1902.  His administration rejected government interference in the economy.  It followed a program of low taxes, limited spending, and limited social programs.  There was no support for small farmers, as was demanded by the people.  The government did not adopt laws restricting foreign ownership of land, as was proposed by Senator Manuel Sanguily (Instituto de Cuba 1998:46-49; Arboleya 2008:76).   

     During the government of Estrada Palma, a Treaty of Reciprocal Commerce with the United States was signed.  The Treaty reduced US customs taxes on Cuban sugar, tobacco, and other products by 20%, and it reduced Cuban tariffs on many US manufactured products by up to 40%.  The treaty increased the organic integration of the Cuban export of crude sugar and tobacco leaf with the sugar refineries and tobacco factories of the United States.  And by expanding the access of US manufacturers to the Cuban market, it undermined the development of Cuban manufacturing, and thus contributed to the “denationalization” of the Cuban economy (Arboleya 2008as:76; Instituto de Cuba 1998:59-65).

     With the establishment of the neocolonial republic, US corporations became owners of sugar, railroad, mining, and tobacco companies in Cuba, displacing Cuban as well as Spanish and English owners.  The rapid entrance of US capitalists was made possible by the ruin of many proprietors in Cuba, caused by the establishment of the dollar as the currency of exchange in the Cuban domestic market, provoking the automatic devaluation of other currencies; and by the denial of credit to US competitors.  In the first decade of the Republic, US investments in Cuba multiplied five times.  By 1920, US corporations directly controlled 54% of sugar production, and US ownership reached 80% of the sugar exportation companies and mining industries.  Thus, we can see that in the early years of the republic, the Cuban government promoted the interests of US corporations, rather than protecting the interests of Cuban capitalists through such measures as the protection of the national currency, the providing of credit, and establishing restrictions on foreign ownership (Arboleya 2008:65-66, 80; Instituto de Cuba 1998:110).

      Because of extensive US ownership, the Cuban bourgeoisie was reduced to what Arboleya calls a “figurehead bourgeoisie.”  Its role is to administer foreign companies and provide them with legal and financial advice.  In addition, the role of the figurehead bourgeoisie is to control the population and ensure political stability (Arboleya 2008:80-81; see “Neocolonialism in Africa and Asia” 9/11/2013; “Neocolonialism in Cuba and Latin America” 9/12/2013).

      US neocolonial domination also had an ideological component. More than one thousand Cuban school teachers received scholarships to study in the United States, and US textbooks were used in Cuban schools.  North American secondary schools emerged to compete with Catholic schools in the education of the Cuban bourgeoisie and middle class.  Large US companies created cultural enclaves, and North American social clubs provided social space for interchange between the Cuban bourgeoisie and representatives of US companies.  Cuban architecture imitated the great buildings of the United States; North American films appeared in Cuban cinemas; Cuban newspapers provided news from the Associated Press and the United Press International; and Cuba became a favorite destination for US tourists (Arboleya 2008:65, 91-92). 

     The neocolonial situation made corruption endemic, as personal enrichment through the state became the principal means of individual upward mobility (Arboleya 2008:77-78).  The government could not respond to the common good as demanded by popular movements, but it could provide a career in public life for officeholders.  Inasmuch as governments have significant revenues that are distributed in various public service and public works projects, they provide opportunities for economic enrichment for many who have relations with the officeholders.  And this situation of economic opportunity connected to the state occurs in a political context that is devoid of a meaningful social project.  Pérez's description (1995:214-20) of the distortions of the political process as facilitating corruption in the early years of the republic provides insight into the social sources of corruption in neocolonized Third World countries.   

      Thus, we see that in the early years of the republic of Cuba the basic structures of  neocolonial domination were established: a political process that is unable to respond to the interests and needs of the people; the preservation of the core-peripheral economic and commercial relation that was established during the colonial era; the reduction of the national bourgeoisie to a figurehead bourgeoisie that is unable to lead the nation in the development of an autonomous national project; ideological penetration of the neocolony by the culture and political concepts of the neocolonial power; and endemic corruption, as a consequence of its being an available strategy for upward mobility.  (For further discussion of the characteristics of neocolonialism, see “The neocolonial world-system” 9/13/2013 and  “The characteristics of neocolonialism” 9/16/2013). 

     The neocolony is the survival of the colony in a new form.  And the neocolony lives on a foundation of fiction, for it pretends to be democratic.  As the Cuban poet, essayist and novelist Cintio Vitier has written, “The colony was an injustice; it was not a deceit.  The Yankee neocolony was both” (2006:122-23).

     The establishment of the neocolonial republic under US control was a devastating blow to those who had sacrificed much in defense of the Cuban Revolution.  It was the shattering of hope.  However, hope would be renewed, and the popular revolution would continue.  It is one of many examples of the endurance of the people in its quest for social justice in opposition to global structures of colonial and neocolonial domination.  We will discuss the continuation of the Cuban popular movement in the context of the neocolonial republic 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. 

Pérez, Jr., Louis A.  1995.  Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution, 2nd edition.  New York:  Oxford University Press. 

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
0 Comments

Instability in the neocolonial republic

9/13/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted July 2, 2014

     We have seen that in the period of 1901 to 1920, a neocolonial republic under US domination was established in Cuba (“A neocolonial republic is born” 7/1/2014), in which a Cuban figurehead bourgeoisie, totally subordinate to US corporations, has the function of maintaining social control and providing political stability to the neocolony.  

     But in order for a neocolony to be stable, two conditions must be met.  The first is economic.  The neocolony and the neocolonial world-system must have sufficient resources to make concessions to popular demands, in order that the state in the neocolony can use a combination of concessions and political repression to contain the popular movement, eliminating and nullifying the influence of the radical sector of the movement leadership, which seeks a revolutionary transformation of the neocolony.  The second condition is political.  There must be commitment by the core neocolonial power to satisfy the material interests of the figurehead bourgeoisie, so that it will have sufficient motivation and credibility to mobilize political and ideological resources in defense of the neocolonial system. 

     These two conditions are intertwined.  When global economic resources are reduced, the political commitment of the core neocolonial power to support the figurehead bourgeoisie is weakened.  Within the neocolony, when national resources are reduced, the figurehead bourgeoisie has less capacity to carry out its political and ideological role of social control and containment of popular movements.

        The necessary conditions for neocolonial political stability did not exist in Cuba in the period of 1920 to 1933, because of economic and political developments both in Cuba and in the world-system.  The result was that advanced social movements under revolutionary leadership, beyond the capacity of the figurehead bourgeoisie to contain, emerged in Cuba from 1923 to 1935 (Vitier 2006:111-46).  The neocolonial republic had entered crisis. 

     The first sign of the crisis in Cuba was the “crack” of 1920.  The situation was provoked by the abrupt fall of sugar prices during the second half of 1920.  The vulnerability of a peripheralized economy to the boom and bust cycles in raw materials is a normal tendency, because of its dependency on one or two raw materials for export. Prior to 1920, Cuban sugar producers expanded production in response to high prices, utilizing loans obtained from Cuban banks.  However, with the sharp fall in prices, Cuban producers were unable to meet debt payments to Cuban banks.  But the Cuban banks had been functioning as intermediaries, borrowing from North American banks in order to make loans to Cuban producers.  Thus, the fall of prices placed Cuban banks in a position of being unable to make debt payments to North American banks (Arboleya 2008:91; Instituto de Cuba 1998:194).

     Initially, the Cuban government protected the Cuban banks by decreeing a moratorium on debt payments by Cuban banks.  But North American companies located in Cuba and Enoch Crowder, personal envoy of the president of the United States who was acting on behalf of the interests of North American banks, pressured the Cuban congress to enact laws in 1921 that ended the moratorium, established procedures for the liquidation of banks, and reorganized the banking system of the country.  As a result, twenty Cuban banks were liquidated.  At the end of 1920, 80% of deposits in banks operating in Cuba had been in Cuban banks; but by the end of 1921, 69% of Cuban bank deposits were in foreign banks operating in Cuba, led by the National City Bank of New York and the Royal Bank of Canada. At the end of 1920, Cuban banks had been the owners of 71% of bank loans, but by the end of 1921 foreign banks operating in Cuba held 82% of bank loans (Instituto de Cuba 1998:194-97).  As Jesus Arboleya has written, “North American financial capital became the proprietor of the national wealth as well as the monopolist of the system of commerce and credit, which meant the nearly total denationalization of the sugar industry and banking of the country” (2008:91).

     Thus, US banks, US companies in Cuba, and the government of the United States took advantage of the 1920 fall in sugar prices to increase their control over the economic and financial resources of the island, ignoring the interests of the Cuban national bourgeoisie, which by 1920 already had been converted into a figurehead bourgeoisie.  In addition, responding to the lower price of sugar, US sugar producers pressured the US congress to modify the Reciprocal Trade treaty of 1903 and to increase the customs duties on Cuban sugar during 1921 and 1922, with negative consequences for Cuba.  Here there was a conflict of interest between sugar producers in the United States and US sugar producers operating in Cuba, with the interests of former prevailing during 1921 and 1922, at the expense of sugar producers in Cuba, both US and Cuban.  

    These political decisions by sectors of the US elite had the effect of reducing the power and authority of the Cuban figurehead bourgeoisie, reducing its capacity to fulfill the ideological and political functions assigned to it by the neocolonial world-system.  And this would occur precisely at a time when the declining price and market for sugar would have negative consequences for Cuban popular sectors, reducing income and increasing unemployment.  The deteriorating social and economic situation of the popular sectors gave rise to the emergence of leaders who could channel popular discontent into popular protest.  They established organizations that were able to analyze the negation of popular needs as rooted in the neocolonial situation; that named the national bourgeoisie as collaborators in a world-system that did not respect the sovereignty of the nation; and that could mobilize the people to collective social action.  

     Thus, a Cuban radical revolutionary movement emerged at a time in which the Cuban figurehead bourgeoisie had been weakened, abandoned and ignored by its senior partners in the neocolonial world-system.  And just as this occurred with respect to Cuba in the period of 1920 to 1935, it would occur on a global scale with the neoliberal project following 1980, as the core elite, driven by a blinded pursuit of particular interests, would abandon the national bourgeoisies in the neocolonies.  The inherent political instability of neocolonialism, first revealed in the neocolony of Cuba, has now become apparent with respect to the neocolonial world-system, as we will discuss in future posts (see “The neocolonial world-system” 9/13/2013 and  “The characteristics of neocolonialism” 9/16/2013). 

      The emergence of a renewed popular movement from 1918 to 1935 that would revitalize the vision of Martí and would forge a synthesis of the Cuban national liberation perspective and Marxism-Leninism will be the subject of our 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
0 Comments

The Cuban workers’ movement of the 1920s

9/12/2014

0 Comments

 
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
0 Comments

Julio A. Mella and the student movement

9/11/2014

0 Comments

 
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
0 Comments

Mella fuses Martí and Marxism-Leninism

9/10/2014

0 Comments

 
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
0 Comments

The Cuban women’s movement of the 1920s

9/9/2014

2 Comments

 
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
2 Comments

Machado and the promise of reform

9/8/2014

0 Comments

 
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
0 Comments

“Democracy” becomes tyranny

9/7/2014

0 Comments

 
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
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Author: Charles McKelvey

    Retired professor, writer,  and Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist revolutionary

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Blog Index
    Bolivia
    Charismatic Leaders
    China
    Critique Of The Left
    Cuban History
    Cuba Today
    Ecuador
    Environment
    French Revolution
    Gay Rights
    Haitian Revolution
    Knowledge
    Latin American History
    Latin American Right
    Latin American Unity
    Marx
    Marxism-Leninism
    Mexican Revolution
    Miscellaneous
    Neocolonialism
    Neoliberalism
    Nicaragua
    North-South Cooperation
    Presidential Elections 2016
    Press
    Public Debate In USA
    Race
    Religion And Revolution
    Revolution
    Russian Revolution
    South-South Cooperation
    Third World
    Trump
    US Ascent
    US Imperialism
    Vanguard
    Venezuela
    Vietnam
    Wallerstein
    Women And Revolution
    World History
    World-System
    World-System Crisis

    Archives

    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

More Ads


website by Sierra Creation