Cuba's Democratic Left on State Socialism

Cuba's Democratic Left on State Socialism
May 9, 2013 | | Print Print | 0 5 11 32

HAVANA TIMES — A couple weeks ago we published a summary of an essay by
Pedro Campos and Armando Chaguaceda on the inability of the State
Socialist system that reigns in Cuba to carry out the changes and
renewal needed to avoid the country repeating the course of the now
extinct USSR and European Socialist Camp.

For readers who can handle Spanish we placed the link to the full essay
but due to translation limitations we were unable to bring you it in
English.

Shortly after, one of our faithful HT volunteer translators took the
piece on because of its importance to those wanting to understand the
issues therein. So today, thanks to him, we can bring you the full text
in English.
Cuba and the Incapacity of State Socialism to Change and Renew Itself

By Pedro Campos and Armando Chaguaceda

During the first years of Soviet power in Russia after Lenin died,
Stalin killed Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Tomsky, all
prominent members of the Political Bureau of the Bolshevik Party during
the Leninist era, accusing them of betraying Soviet power, by
disagreeing with its ultra-centrist, undemocratic line and proposing
reforms considered by the Georgian to be capitalist deviations.

Thousands of the Party cadres and members of the Armed Froces shared the
same fate or were sent to Siberia, to carry out forced labor in
concentration camps.

In the 1960s, Nikita Khrushchev severely criticized the Stalinist
personality cult at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, attempted
economic reform and tried to ease international relations, moves which
ultimately cost him the post of Secretary General and ostracism.

Two decades later, under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the USSR
began a process of renewal – Perestroika – which was buried under the
coup made by the defenders of the traditionalist neo-Stalinist model,
circumstances which Boris Yeltsyn and the liberal forces who wanted to
change things, took advantage of in favor of something more acceptable
to the majority. In just half a year, the system was dismantled.

The results are well known: the restoration of Russian capitalism with
all the ensuing consequences: an initial neoliberal phase, led by
Yeltsyn, associated with corruption, privatization and the decline of
state power and then another authoritarian one, where the customs and
symbols of Russian nationalism and statism were resuscitated with Putin
at the helm.

In both cases with quite a few "capitalists" and "democrats" emerging
from the "socialist" bureaucracy which is now in charge of the nation.

China: Capitalist Restoration with a Socialist Disguise

In China, the Chinese Communist Party, under the direction of the
pragmatic Deng Xiaoping, for many years took the clear path of
capitalist restoration while trying to keep up a socialist disguise.

Today no one doubts that China is just one more capitalist power:
exporting goods and capital and hunting (in Asia, Africa, Latin America,
and even in the capitalist centers of the U.S. and Europe) for markets,
businesses and natural resources. Preying on the environment, it
participates in the geopolitical division of spheres of influence and in
the arms race and consecrates the hegemony (real and symbolic) of the
capitalist market.

Thus the Chinese attempt at state socialism did not undergo renewal
either but evolved more towards private capitalism under an
authoritarian regime.

At the heart of the Cuban revolutionary process there has been an
on-going discussion about how to continue the revolution of 1959.
Firstly, among those who prioritized democratic restoration – with the
necessary dose of redistributive and judicial content – and those in
favor of a strong state to manage social reforms. The leader from the
Sierra [Fidel Castro], together with these last, prevailed in the end.

The Cuban Communists who accompanied and supported him forgot that Marx
was not in favor of sacrificing freedom for justice, and forgot too that
the people's revolution of 59 had been undertaken to restore the
democratic order interrupted by Batista. They, and the revolutionary
leadership itself, conveniently "forgot" the promise of "freedom with
bread, bread without terror" heralded by the supreme leader in the first
speeches he made after victory (1).

Then, having elected to take the path towards a Stalinist type
"socialism", and having demarcated those forces insisting on restoring
the democracy undermined in 1952 (but on a broader level, extending it –
to varying degrees – with forms and degrees of public participation,
social gains and national sovereignty unheard of under the bourgeois
Republic) as well as those who generally rejected the transfer of the
"communist" experience to Cuba, the focus of the discussions within the
organizations supporting the government shifted towards the
implementation of a centralized economic and political model of Soviet
inspiration.

It was in this context that the controversy arose between Che and
Charles Betheleheim (Belgian Communist, favoring business autonomy and
greater rationality in macroeconomic management, using the law of value
and forms of worker participation) and that held by the
pro-Khrushchovians promoters of Economic Calculus (led by Carlos Rafael
Rodriguez) and the voluntarists/idealists of the Budgetary Finance
System (directed and inspired by Che).

A Lord and Master State

But in the end nothing came out of it all, only a lord and master state,
all-powerful, hyper-centralized, headed by the by-now-familiar leader,
until 1975 when the First Congress of the second Communist Party set new
guidelines for society and voted the 1976 Constitution, a quasi-copy of
the neo-Stalinist constitution in force in the USSR.

In the economic field, the measures approved in 1975-76, entailed
several phases ranging from centralization to more decentralization in
the business sector and in the regions (2).

But in 1986, at the 3rd Congress of the CPC, when the time came to move
on to decentralization and autonomy for businesses and many party and
worker cadres were clamoring for final shape to be given to the measures
envisaged in the SPDE (Economic Management and Planning System), the
President of the Councils of State and Ministers, First Secretary of the
Party and Commander in Chief, ordered the "rectification of errors and
negative tendencies".

This was the preventive reaction the supreme leader took – wrapped up in
appeals to the ideals of Che and to healthy and sound popular energies,
imbued with leftist idealism – when confronted with the possibility that
the renewal process taking place in the USSR and in part of the
"socialist camp" might occur in Cuba too. A single speech saw the
elimination of the SPDE and the JUCEPLAN, the Central Planning Board,
charged with implementing what was approved at the 1st Congress of the
CCP in 1975.

Since then we have seen a complete return to the excessive
centralization of the decision-making process whether economic,
political or otherwise. General assemblies were held between the top
business directors and the supreme leader to give concrete orientation;
and contingents of workers have been set up for the main economic
sectors, led personally by Fidel through the auspices of designated
directors but also serving to "confront" any protests that might arise,
these measures heralded a return to the era of expensive
macro-experimentation, typified by the now famous micro-jet banana.

Reacting to the Special Period Crisis

This situation was accentuated by the so-called "Special Period in Time
of Peace" after the fall of the USSR and the socialist camp, when the
subsidized Cuban economy naturally went bankrupt. So popular despair
increased. Where they could, people left the country in even greater
numbers. The blame went to imperialism and its real threat was hyped to
justify emergency measures. The philosophy of "in a besieged city: all
dissent is treason" became more valid than ever.

Instead of speeding up reforms to the system, the country's leadership,
ignoring the opinions and desires of its members, its citizens and
intellectuals (expressed in the national debate organized on the eve of
the Fourth Congress of the CCP in 1991) tried to sustain the centralist
model with its austerity measures and repressive mechanisms.

It was only the August 5, 1994 revolt on the Malecon in Havana, that
prompted the implementation, but again in a restricted, oscillating
fashion, of a package of economic reforms under study. Only to be later
withdrawn or modified, when Chavez and Venezualan oil came to the rescue.

These measures, a necessary evil as they were termed at the time, led to
no substantial change in the centralized, bureaucratic economic model,
at the same time as no significant change was seen in the political system.

From Fidel to Raul Castro

This situation has persisted until after the historic leader's illness,
when the new government of Raul Castro began what it started to call,
the "updating " of the economic model – a new and more extensive version
of the package truncated at the end of the 1990s' – ratified politically
by the Sixth Congress of the PCC.

Also aimed at is greater efficiency in the productive system of the
state through rationalizing its structures and staff and through the
relative centralization/decentralization of the utilization of state
resources and finances, as the bureaucratic elite sees fit.

To divest what are considered unproductive activities, to create jobs
and improve state finances through taxation – as a solution to its needs
– the state opened the door slightly to self-employment, to small and
medium domestic capital investment and large scale foreign investment
and to a lesser degree to the subordinated insertion into the economy of
certain types of cooperatives – on an experimental basis – but still
under the control of the monopolistic state.

The government of Raul Castro also entertains high hopes for American
tourism and for Cuba to serve as a bridge (from the port of Mariel)
between the North American, the South American and part of the Asian
markets to try to revive its economy, pending the lifting of the US
blockade.

From our point of view this is a serious strategic mistake, since we do
not believe that such a waiver is possible without first creating
democratic change in the political system, something which the so-called
historical figures seem unwilling to do. Whatever the case, trusting the
further development of "socialism" to economic cooperation with
imperialism, and maintaining restrictions on the freedoms and rights of
citizens, seems as illogical as neo-Plattist.

Foreign trade, the wholesale and most of the retail market, continue
under the administration of state monopolies, beyond a rational,
necessary national regulation, desirable and understandable for reasons
of planning and sovereignty. Everything for the purpose of essentially
maintaining centralized state control of the economy and its traditional
enterprises, whether or not they are profitable, produce for export or
for domestic consumption or use this or that currency in their operation.

Positive Changes but Too Slow and Still Inadequate

The modest, positive changes Raul Castro's government has recently
introduced include allowing Cubans access to hotels, to cellular
telephones and travel abroad under the new immigration law, rights all
absurdly violated under the previous government with the excuse that it
was all for "the class struggle and the confrontation with imperialism."
In short, steps to be lauded perhaps, but too long delayed, slow and
still inadequate.

In the political sphere, prisoners of the so-called Group of 75 have
been freed, but the systematic imprisonment of opponents and harassment
of any type of expression of independent thought and activism (whatever
the ideological persuasion) are maintained at a high level. Repression
may have altered its modes of expression but not its essence.

An opening has also been created for sexual and cultural diversity, but
censorship and the repression of political pluralism remains a logical
and natural feature of a complex, mature society like Cuba.

But these small steps, all slowed down by the bureaucracy, are far from
what is needed to drive a socialist renewal. What's been done so far is
more likely to benefit a capitalist restoration, a tropical variation of
the kind that developed in authoritarian China.

We must remember that the "update" was preceded by a limited debate
along vertical lines within the Communist Party and Cuban society, which
opened up when the Great Conductor of the Revolutionary Process said at
the University of Havana in 2005 that the revolution could be destroyed
by the revolutionaries themselves if it did not solve the solve the
serious problems of corruption and the bureaucracy.

Proposals from the Left Fall on Deaf Ears

Left-wing reformist forces, participating where they could, particularly
from the alternative media (3) sources available to them, given the
limited space for participation allowed them by the centralized system,
have presented a series of proposals for a democratic and socialist exit
from the crisis.

Their suggestions have ranged across the entire economic, social and
political sphere but the Party-government has accepted them only to a
limited extent and has facilitated neither their disclosure nor their
discussion either within the party or by society at large.

Rather than being encouraged, many of us promoting these proposals, have
been repressed in different ways, amply demonstrating that not only is
traditional dissent repressed in Cuba but also that the motivation for
such repression (which the official propaganda insists is having proven
links with foreign governments), has no foundation whatsoever.

Not one representative of the renovation minded left (political or
intellectual) of the country or the world was invited even as an
observer to the Sixth Congress of the PCC. The most important
socio-economic measure demanded by the socialist left, – the direct
participation of workers in the management, running and in part of the
proceeds of the state enterprises was not even touched on in the
so-called "guidelines".

To limit our access to alternative media spaces, to harass and slander
us with biased remarks and false accusations wherever we tried to
publish, staff of the organs of state security and of the apparatus of
information control, were ordered to prevent the publication of any
articles written by the democratic left within the revolutionary nucleus
or appearing in any organ of the national press,

Our comrades were dismissed from their jobs, demoted to positions where
they have less influence, given early retirement of the FAR and the
MININT and others had their internet and e-mail accounts closed.

In extreme cases, attempts have been made to prevent the left holding
activities with the threat that "popular anger" or wild accusations of
"infiltration by CIA agents" into their ranks could be made against them.

Some of the media of the international left such as Rebellion –
presumably under pressure from the Cuban government – stopped publishing
the critical proposals of the Cuban left. In other media like
Kaosenlared, we have seen a sharp rise in the coverage devoted to
official government writers and zealots defending the statist model, in
an attempt to dull the strong international presence of the left
silenced in Cuba.

The Casa Cuba Laboratory Proposal

Recently, the Casa Cuba Laboratory, a group of young intellectuals
containing communists, republicans, socialists, anarchists and Catholics
in its ranks, issued a document calling for a national debate on basic
aspects of political life from a purely democratic and socialist
perspective.

So far the Party-government's response has been one of silence with its
apparatus of disinformation and discredit attacking its proposals and
trying to identify them with "the enemy" in the alternative online media.

And so the Goebels-Beria propaganda twist is applied: "The NED is a US
government institution. The NED provides funding to Cubaencuentro
magazine. The former director of Cubaencuentro comments favorably on
Casa Cuba Laboratory's proposals. The conclusion is clear: The LCC is
linked to the US government. It is one of the methods that have always
been used against the democratic, socialist left by fascists and
Stalinists in all parts of the world, in all ages.

It has become clear that the members of the ruling bureaucracy have no
wish to share real power, neither economic nor political with the
workers nor with the rest of the population but prefer to collaborate
with domestic and foreign capital in the exploitation of Cuban workers
in exchange for financial support so they can continue indefinitely
licking at the "the honey pot of power"

The conclusions are obvious: in Cuba, the old, failed model of state
socialism shows no signs of willingness for a true renewal and just like
in China, its traditional supporters aspire to "develop the country's
economy on the basis of a capitalist restoration controlled by the Party."

Thus they seek to create the conditions, once the "historic leadership"
has disappeared which will allow them to move on to an autocratic
capitalism of the Russian type, where liberal democracy and citizens'
rights are circumscribed by the hegemony of a nationalist party and its
associated elites and their allies, with the complacency of the
transnationals and the other imperialist powers.

For the traditional leadership of the Party-government, anything that is
foreign to its own guidelines, is by definition against it. Anything
that they do not believe in, is branded as serving imperialism. Any
demand, from whatever quarter, for democracy and for the rights violated
by the statist model, "only serves the enemy."

The Achievements Were Made Possible by the Workers

In the same way, the achievements of the populace in health, education
and sports, (which must be preserved from any moves towards
privatization) and which exist thanks to the dedication and sacrifice of
millions of honest citizens, are presented as the work of the ruling
bureaucracy for which the public is supposed to pay them homage.

The intolerance to change the model sustained by the single Party-state
and its absolute control over most property, the legal system, the armed
forces, security and public order, as well as the system of
para-political organizations and the media and all the means of
disclosure, makes any real discussion of socialist renewal in this
country virtually impossible.

The inability of "state socialism" to renew itself is also evident in
Cuba. And this same resistance to change, is what caused the political
pendulum to swing to the opposite extreme in the USSR and other
state-socialist countries.

Closed Doors

From the socialist left, we have tried to do our part. We have called
for fair and democratic discussion through the available channels as
well as "in the right form, place and time," something the present
government and its supporters defend. But each time we have had the door
slammed in our face.

In our country, the tacit message of official propaganda continues to
be: "either for the revolution or against the revolution", identifying
the revolution with the line adopted by the Party-government, and making
you "either with Cuba or with US imperialism", identifying Cuba with the
line adopted by the Party-government. Two absurdities offering no
solution: either you support the failed model (till it ends in debacle)
or you are an accomplice of imperialism.

But for Cuba's democratic socialists the matter is quite clear: neither
one nor the other.

In their smear campaigns against the Cuban broad democratic left, they
try to present our criticisms as corresponding to the positions of the
imperialist enemy to accuse us of collusion with it, ignoring the fact
that our proposed solutions have nothing to do with capitalism and that
we have rejected overtures by US government agencies (as can be seen
from testimonies in the press) and that we maintain a critical stance on
the foreign and domestic policies of the major capitalist powers. At the
same time as debating our differences with representatives of the
liberal ideology, in ways that correspond to a civic exchange.

The only people who will be responsible for Cuba ending up in the purest
form of capitalism, and being annexed by US imperialism in one form or
another, whether real or virtual, are those at the highest levels of the
Party-government, who resist the changes that are needed and demanded by
the Cuban people, the left, and every patriotic Cuban citizen supporting
the democratization of the political system and the socialization of
property.

For broad sectors of the population, the attitude they take only serves
to reinforce the idea that socialism is incorrigible, that the left
cannot possibly have alternatives to the current crises and that the
democratic values of the liberal model and of capitalism in consequence,
are superior.

Given this intolerance, this sectarianism, the levels of repression
against everything that is not pro-government, it is virtually
impossible – no matter how much we desire it or how hard we try - to
arrive at any understanding or cooperation with the current leaders.

It is quite simple: they do not want to, they do not care. They think
they are all-powerful, infallible and eternal.

We are not against meeting with representatives of the Party-government
for the purpose of holding a serious dialogue on the future of Cuba.
Indeed, we have sought to do so repeatedly, only to be visited by
members of the security forces, with no authority to discuss policy
issues. All our writings and our proposals are known to the Party
leadership. But many of us on the socialist left have already lost hope
of such a meeting ever taking place.

We have no criticism nor do we oppose those among the variegated Cuban
left who insist that it is possible to move on towards a socialist
renewal from the current political and governmental structures. If only
it were possible! We wholeheartedly wish it were so and that our
diagnosis (based on the harsh everyday reality, historical and personal
experience) be found wanting.

The Need to Recognize Failure

But still we believe that the current leaders first need to recognize
that the statist model has failed utterly and accept that the whole
system of concepts, methods and structures on which it is founded must
be democratically transformed.

We cannot possibly move forward with our socialist demands while the
current model of state capitalism persists with the Party-government
having absolute control of the economy, politics, information,
elections, legal system and all the other institutions that should
respond to the wishes of the people as a whole and not just to a select
group.

And of course, the changes we fight for and defend from the variegated
ranks of the left are not aimed (as the government claims from its dark,
hooded ranks) at restoring capitalism in Cuba, nor for the right in
Miami and the imperialists to take ownership of our country – which is
what will happen ultimately through the government's apathy,
stubbornness and intolerance – but so the Cuban people and their labor
and social groups are the ones who decide who should be elected and
given responsibility for implementing the policies that are approved by
popular referenda, to make and approve the laws and determine how the
output of the production system is to be allocated and distributed.

At the same time, we acknowledge the invariable right of all Cubans,
regardless of their political views or their location, to associate
freely, to speak freely and to participate in the political, social and
economic life of the nation. Either freedom is for everyone, or it is a lie.

And so, despite the fact that the issue seems to be beyond the
comprehension of some people, we firmly believe that everyone has the
right to freely express their opinion on matters of politics or society,
and that in this regard, we socialists have the opportunity to
persuasively win the public's confidence in promoting a program of
democratization that is both fair and just in defense of our popular,
national sovereignty.

What is the Party-government afraid of? If they are so confident they
can always count on the vast majority of people who vote for them in the
elections, why should they trouble themselves about things like freedom
of expression and association or for the development of completely free
and democratic elections?

For these reasons we believe that the struggle to democratize society
must be put at the top of the work list of the Cuban socialist left, as
Casa Cuba Laboratory has done. Given the circumstances and the sectarian
attitude of the Party-government, we have no alternative but to do so.

Grassroots Democracy Is the Only Way

The present model needs to be changed, but doing so top down, out of the
structures of the old system, appears impossible. We need to work for
grassroots democracy, from the ground up, from within the local
neighborhood, from the workplaces, from the alternative press, fighting
for every space available for popular participation at every occasion,
wherever it is to be found, in an attempt to change certain aspects of
the Constitution, criminal procedure law, electoral law and the laws
that support the political and economic monopoly of the
state-party-government.

We reject all foreign interference in our internal affairs; but like the
Cuban revolutionaries we have been in solidarity with other oppressed
peoples of the world and so it is no wonder the international community
is in solidarity with Cuba's oppressed.

Nor do we advocate violence of the kind. But rather civic action from
positions that are peaceful, constructive and comprehensive. True
socialism, natural, not imposed, humanist, democratic, the socialism of
human solidarity, inclusive, can only be achieved by methods like these
and never through the absurdity of imposition.

If the Cuban socialist democratic left as a whole wants its ideals to be
published in Cuba and disseminated throughout the country and wants to
struggle freely for its ideals, it needs to abandon all forms of
sectarianism and subordinate its interests to the general struggles of
the Cuban people for the complete restoration of democracy in the full
extent of its meaning: the power of the people.

No to the "democracy" controlled by the powerful, by those who control
the capital whether private or state, by those who exploit the people.
But Yes to real, direct democracy where the people decide on all the
issues that concern it.

Without democracy, socialism of any kind is impossible.

—–
Notes:

1 – See http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1959/esp/f240459e.html

2 – See Resolutions of the 1st Congress of the Party on the Management
and Planning System for the Economy as well as the most recent article
by Carmelo Mesa Lago, "Cuba in the Raul Castro era" published in 2012 by
the Colibri Publishers.

3 – Citizen forums in homes and communities, websites of the
international left, independent blogs, discussion spaces of official
institutions, especially in the cultural world.

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=92848