Pontificating on Cuba with learned by rote theories - – On the concrete conditions and situation of Cuba
The steps to be taken in the direction of a socialist economy after seizing the political power in a country that has established its industry and mechanized its agriculture, and the steps to be taken after seizing the political power in a country whose industry has never been developed and whose agriculture has not yet been mechanized will differ from each other in terms and conditions both in domestic and foreign relations. In some countries, in order to meet basic needs, it will be necessary to trade with capitalist countries by making concessions when necessary, others will be self-sufficient and will not have to make concessions in trade relations. Likewise, there will be differences in the conditions and situations of applying theories to practice for a country that is under embargo and other not , and or, a country to which a blockade is imposed - that is, the embargo is militarily and widely enforced by sanctions from every country and company - will be different.
To criticize a country that had to make "concessions" in order
to save its starving people, with learned by rote and sloganized left phrases
such as "concessionist", "conciliatory", etc., is not
constructive, but destructive, in the final analysis - in particular and in
general - is a service to the bourgeoisie.
Ignoring these basic facts and criticizing a country based on memorized
theories may not be the work of a Marxist-Leninist, but of left-wing phrase-mongerers
who ultimately serve the interests of the bourgeoisie.
Without analysing Cuba, without obtaining concrete and realistic
information, criticizing Cuba with pedantic, extreme- Left, memorized theories
that do not have their feet on concrete conditions, concrete situations, and
real ground, can only be petty-bourgeois pontification.
Marxist Leninists form their critiques by analyzing the given topic. It
is a responsibility for Marxist-Leninists to make sure that the analyzes are based
on the "concrete conditions" and their feet are on the "real
ground". İn dealing with almost any given subject, Right and left deviance
kinship either proceeds from unrelated internal and external concrete
situations and conditions of the given country or - and mostly - disregarding
the concrete situations and conditions, finds
itself in the method of criticizing with eclecticism, learned by rote,
extreme left expressions, and slogans. Whereas " a Marxist must not abandon the ground of
careful analysis of class relations... in assessing a given
situation, a Marxist must proceed not from what is possible, but from
what is real." (1) "It is not enough to learn the slogans by
heart (2) a Marxist "demands a
strictly historical examination of the problem...to treat the problem as
separate from the concrete historical situation is an error of betrayal
of the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism." (3)
What are the historical and current concrete conditions and situation
that should be considered as the basis for the critique of Cuba?
Every Political Power that chooses the path and goal of socialism has an
aim of being economically self-sufficient in terms of meeting the basic needs. Today,
Cuba imports 70% of its food needs - as we will see later why- and sometimes she can't afford to import. Is this
due to the incompetence of the Cuban Government or the wrong policies they have
implemented? Or is it a policy of “starvation” and subjugation, of getting concessions?
Or it is a result of the imperialist policy -that even in one historical case, anchored ships loaded with tons of grain 10
kilometers away from the country which was starving until it made concessions.?
(The historical practice applied by the USA to India)?
The US has used its policy of hunger for 60 years to bring Cuba's
agricultural sector to its knees through a "blockade", and
this policy has been the biggest obstacle for the development of Cuba's ability
to be self-sufficient in basic food needs. The US blockade has made the
shortage of tools, equipment, fertilizers, fuel, irrigation materials and
related technologies a constant problem for the development of agriculture in Cuba. It has consistently
hindered Cuba's agricultural sector from reaching her possible potential.
Crop yields and productivity in general fell to the bare minimum, as
agriculture and farming often rely on human and animal power rather than the
use of machinery. For this reason, more than half of Cuba's arable land cannot
be cultivated. The scarcity of tools and machinery turned into a perpetual
shortage of food.
In 2019, the Trump administration took new measures to further cut
Cuba's oil needs, imposing sanctions on companies and ships around the world
that transport fuel to Cuba. According to the statistics given, Cuba was unable
to plant 12,399 hectares of rice that year due to fuel shortages, that is,
195,000 tons of food could not be produced.
Now, I wonder what those who pontificate by saying that "Cuba is
doing business with the capitalists", "giving concessions to
the capitalists" expect from Cuba to do in this situation? Or what
should Cuba have done so that she does not become a target of these "preaching
critiques"?
As I emphasized in another extensive article in which I discussed
the main criticisms one by one, aside from the fact that these criticisms are
not grounded in terms of concrete conditions, they are also theoretically
inconsistent, because especially for a developing socialist country, trade is
not forbidden, it is an obligation and an inevitability. While responding to similar criticisms in
the Soviets, Lenin said:
“To ensure the continuous, if slow,
rehabilitation of large-scale industry we must not hesitate to throw sops to
the greedy foreign capitalists, because, from the standpoint of building
socialism, it is at present to our advantage to overpay the foreign
capitalists some hundreds of millions in order to obtain the machines
and materials for the rehabilitation of large-scale industry, which will
restore the economic basis of the proletariat, and will transform it into a
steadfast proletariat, instead of one engaged in profiteering. ……It would be
absurd and ridiculous to deny that the fact that the proletariat is a handicap.
By 1921, we realised that after the struggle against the external enemy, the
main danger and the greatest evil confronting us was our inability to ensure
the continuous operation of the few remaining large enterprises.
This is the main thing. Without such an
economic basis, the working class cannot firmly hold political power. “ (4)
This and many other similar speeches of Lenin prove that such criticism of
Cuba is theoretically nothing but pontification with left-wing phraseology. The
forgotten fact is that Cuba could not even make this trade, because
trade with Cuba has been hindered for years largely due to the US blockade.
In other words, the criticism that "concessions are made to the
capitalists" does not even touch its feet to the concrete reality in terms of its
degree and importance, and theoretically, it does not exceed to be learned
by rote leftist phraseology. Lenin responded to the criticism on this
subject as follows:
“Concessions are nothing to be afraid of. There is nothing terrible about giving the concessionaires
a few factories and retaining the bulk in our own hands. Of course, it
would be absurd for the Soviet power to hand out the bulk of its property in
the form of concessions. That would not be concessions, but a return to
capitalism. There is nothing to fear in concessions so long as we retain
possession of all the state enterprises and weigh up exactly and strictly
the concessions we grant, and the terms and scale on which we grant them.
Growing capitalism will be under control and supervision, while political
power will remain in the hands of the working class and of the workers’ state. The
capital which will exist in the form of concessions and the capital which will
inevitably grow through the medium of the co-operatives and a free market, have
no terrors for us. We must try to develop and improve the condition of the peasantry,
and make a great effort to have this benefit the working class. We shall be
able to do all that can be done to improve peasant farming and develop local
trade more quickly with concessions than without them, while planning our
national economy for a much faster rehabilitation of large-scale
socialist industry.” (5)
Considering the concrete fact that Cuba has no industry and has an
agriculture and food problem, Lenin's statements are sufficient to see the
fallacy of these criticisms for those who are sincere and want to understand.
Putting obstacles in front of the development of agriculture in Cuba and
starving the Cubans is seen as one of the most important weapons in their hands
by the US imperialists. From 1962 to 2000, the United States completely banned
the sale of U.S. food to Cuba. In the early 1990s, with the disintegration of
the Soviet Union, with which Cuba was able to trade, and while most awaiting an easing,
the US intensified its blockade of Cuba. The desired outcome was to create a
massive and widespread problem of malnutrition throughout Cuba. But despite all
this, Cuba survived and found new sources of food. When this strategy of
subjugating Cuba by starvation failed, and as US agricultural and fertilizer
international companies forced the government to enter the Cuban market, the US
created an exception in 2000 that allowed certain food sales. However, the
obligation to make "advance and cash" payments from Cuba within the
"exception", the prohibition of companies from lending to Cuba,
revealed the fact that this "exception" was also a part of the policy
of repression. Therefore, Cuba had to pay higher prices for its food needs to
geographically more distant markets. According to the statistical report given,
this distant market trade cost Cuba an additional $430 million from April 19 to
March 2020 alone.
Trade entails a capital that remains after basic and economic and social
obligatory expenditures and bank relations. Tourism is the second most
important source of income in Cuba, apart from the taxes used for social
purposes. For this reason, the blockade of American imperialism on the basis of
starving Cuba and bankrupting the political power in this way has widely
targeted Cuban Tourism. (By the way, what many, including some critics, don't
know is that traveling from the US to Cuba is prohibited, and even before it
was officially "banned", there were legal and economic risks to
traveling to Cuba that not everyone could afford to take.)
Cuban Tourism created about 1 out of every 10 jobs in Cuba, that is,
around half a million jobs. According to statistics, tourism income, which was
2 billion dollars in 2000 and 3.3 billion in 2017, started to decline and fell
to 2.5 billion in 2019, compared to 2000. One of the sectors most affected by
the epidemic was tourism. In 2020, the Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean (ECLAC) predicted that the effects of COVID-19 on global
tourism would be greater than the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. At the
end of December 2020, Cuba experienced a 74.6% decrease in the number of
international visitors compared to those who arrived in 2019. By February 2021,
there was a 95.5% decrease compared to the figures for January and February of
the previous year. We should see these decreases not only as a decrease in the
income of the state, but also as the loss of those who lost their jobs and
those who earned income from tourism. The only difference is that even if the
Cuban loses his job, there is no worry of paying for rent, health care or basic
food, the system covers them. However, this income decline, in addition to the
blockade, exacerbated the food import problem.
When it comes to trade - export, import - it should be emphasized that
banking-financial operations are one of
the most important targets of the American imperialist blockade.
Almost all (US) domestic and foreign banks and financial institutions
generally refuse to participate in Cuba's business transactions or provide
other similar banking services to avoid fines and retaliation from the US
Government. The most important system that provides the world's high-speed
transactions between banks is a giant, USA-dominated financial messaging
network called SWIFT (Worldwide Association for Interbank Financial
Telecommunication) for transferring money between banks in different countries.
Forty percent of global transactions made through SWIFT are in US dollars.
Because these transfers must go through US banks without approval, it gives the
US Government legal jurisdiction over these transfers and banks. This means
that the American Government controls almost half of all international transfer
transactions and can use this dominance in the service of its foreign policy. For
this reason, Cuban efforts to conduct financial transactions with third
countries via SWIFT to do business are often thwarted, and even the simplest
and most vital transactions become extremely complex for Cubans.
From the USA to Cuba, only Cubans living in the USA could remit
money to their family and relatives – an important income for Cubans. However,
the US government, which is trying to suffocate Cuba with hunger, passed a law
in 2019 aimed at restricting this as well. According to this law, the amount
sent was limited to a thousand dollars every four months, or 250 dollars a
month. Money sent to “relatives” outside the family was banned. To facilitate enforcement
of this law, the U.S. government blacklisted Fincimex, the Cuban financial
institution that received remittances, thus barring U.S. banks from sending
remittance payments to Fincimex.
The most important area targeted by the US imperialists' blockade and coveted by the US international
monopoly pharmaceutical industry is the Cuban health, research, and
pharmaceutical industry.
The blockade, which was already generally rigid, went through different
phases and zigzags in this area. From 1964 to 1975, the sale of all kinds of
drugs, medical equipment, supplies, and technology from the United States to
Cuba was prohibited. Taking into account the interests of the US Pharmaceutical
Industry - and mainly dependent on their wishes and approval - in 1975 the
possibility of establishing a trade relationship with Cuba in this field was
provided under a “Special License”. However, the obstacles to obtaining this
"special license" were bureaucratic obstacles that only international
monopolies could overcome. The aim was to pave the way for the Cuban medical
industry to be swallowed up by monopolies. As history has proven, Cuba did not
fall for this trick, it entered into relations with other countries for its
needs.
In response, the United States changed the terms of the blockade, almost
blocking the worldwide sale of medical equipment and supplies to Cuba. If
more than 10% of the value of any medicinal commodity produced outside the USA
was due to parts, compositions or technical processes sourced from the USA, the
United States could prohibit the sale of that medicinal commodity. Due to the
fact that the US drug and medical monopolies dominate the global market, the
pharmaceutical and medical industry in other countries avoided dealing with
Cuba in this area because of the fear of "sanctions".
The ruthlessness went even further, and some companies that entered into
relations with Cuba began to be bought. When Cuban tried to purchase
life-saving mechanical pulmonary ventilators from Swiss companies it had
previously traded with—IMT Medical AG and Acutronic Medical Systems AG—he
learned that these companies had been acquired by a US-based company.
As can be seen, the situation in Cuba has a characteristic that cannot be
seen as normal, customary and like other countries. Let's repeat; To criticize
Cuba with pedant, “extreme” Left, learned by rote theories that do not touch
concrete conditions, concrete situations, and real ground, can only be
petty-bourgeois pontification.
The most important fact forgotten
is the USA, which has the world's largest (let's say second) economy imposing
and by forcing other countries with strong and weak economies to implement a
blockade on a small country with an underdeveloped economy – a country yet
resisting, not accepting defeat, and not surrendering - for over 60 years.
Cuba lost $9.1 billion ($436 million per month) between April 2019 and
December 2020 due to the blockade, according to data from Cuban Foreign
Minister Rodriguez. At current prices, accumulated losses over sixty years
exceed $147.8 billion and, against the price of gold, exceed $1.3
trillion."
Conditions that do not develop positive direction due to external
factors oblige Cuba to take new measures and new decisions.
Theories do not determine these conditions; these conditions determine the way theories
are applied. As in the soviets, it is known that depending on the
concrete situation and the experiences gained, it is possible to take steps
backwards in some areas and take steps forward in other areas, which is a
fact that cannot be ignored for Cuba under siege. On January 1, the 62nd
anniversary of Cuba's revolutionary victory, the government's implementation of
a comprehensive economic policy that abolished the dual-currency model,
reorganizing the monetary system to encourage greater efficiency and greater
production, is one step in that direction. According to the statement, this
change includes a significant and needed increase in the incomes and pensions
of all government employees.
Although there are reservations of a group of internationalist comrades,
including myself who have close knowledge of Cuba on this subject, we do not
have the possibility of knowing the
concrete conditions and the situation, the dialectical connections of
the decision taken, better and more deeply than those who took this
decision (taken by hundreds of experts and minds after debating ). In this
case, to put forward criticism on a "theoretical basis" on
this issue, apart from being arrogant, would be disrespectful to the
internationalist understanding. In particular, without having concrete and
accurate information about Cuba about both internal and external factors, and
relying only on memorized and sloganized theories, criticizing Cuba on one or
another subject without stepping on the real ground cannot exceed the quality
of arrogance, that of petty-bourgeois pontification.
The Cuban Communist comrade, with whom I confirmed some subjects and data while writing this and previous articles about
Cuba, ended his e-letter in reference to the critiques as follows;
“We evaluate every criticism from
internationalist communists to the extent that it is appropriate to the
existing situation and conditions, and take it seriously. Likewise, we
sincerely and cordially wish each of them success -within the shortest possible
duration- in their struggles in their own countries. Because their overthrow
of the bourgeois government in their own countries and their steps in
the construction of socialism will ease and facilitate our success here. At
the same time, the political, social, and economic steps they will take to
establish socialism, their attitudes against internal and external pressures,
and the measures and successes they take will provide "living"
examples not only to us but also to others.”
To conclude, I think this comrade is someone who, due to the culture
of a communist who has lived through the construction of socialism, does
not create a discourse that is even slightly offensive to those who deserve it.
As a Marxist-Leninist who has lived under and within Fascism, Capitalism, what
I will say without hesitation, especially to some “critics” from Turkey, is
this;
While they cannot show a serious (theoretical
and practical) leadership, a serious organization, even a serious struggle –
which is the struggle to seize the political power, and is the prerequisite for the
construction of socialism – in their own countries, where the fascist
dictatorship and reaction have been dominant for years, to criticize a
country that has the political power already, in a pedantic and arrogant way on the
questions of the struggle period after the seizure of power, is called
pontification.
Marxist Leninists of similar countries that are in the process of
struggling to seize the political power share the "trial-learning"
practices and put forward positive criticisms on this basis, this is
internationalist solidarity. However, criticism of a country who has already
acquired the political power by those
who have not yet succeed in seizing the political power, without having no practical experience with the practical aspects
of “after seizure of political power”, especially if it is made without
considering the concrete conditions and situation of that country, is called arrogance,
disrespectfulness. It's easy to pontificate, but practice is hard. The Leninist
path requires action, not phrases.
Internationalism brings with it the responsibility of being constructive
and progressive, not obstructive, or accusatory. Criticism is made for
socialism, to influence it better and in the right direction, not to slander
those who are proceeding in the path of, in the ideal of socialism. Because this
concerns not only the interests of Cuba in particular, but of the world
revolutionary struggle in general.
Stalin, who had great experience both before and after the seizure of
power, after listening to other comments that differed from his opinion in the
secret meeting held on the Greek CP's policy, said "then it would be worth
waiting. Maybe you are right", and gave an example humbly; "I wasn't
sure about the capacity, strength of the Chinese either, and I suggested they
make a temporary deal with Chiang Kai-Shek. They said that the people supported
them and they would continue the war. We just asked what their needs were. They
were right, we were wrong. Maybe we were wrong about this too. But we want
you to take a firm stand.” (Dimitrov’s Diaries)
The question is constructive
criticism and an internationalist understanding and attitude of respecting
the Marxist Leninists of that country and their analysis and decisions.
The problem is the
petty-bourgeois learned by rote attitude of "giving advice" to the
Marxist-Leninists of a country that has seized the political power and
has had 60 years of struggle and experience, even when the “advice giver”
does not have a clear idea -not in the abstract, but concrete- and experience about the seizure of political
power.
28 July 2021
With the contribution of internationalist Marxist Leninists;
Erdogan A
Data Source; Liberation News; Chris Banks, Statista.com, Havana Times, Granma
Notes;
(1) Lenin, Letters on Tactics
(2) A caricature of Lenin Bolshevism
(3) Lenin, Guerrilla War
(4) Lenin, Tenth All-Russian Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)
(5) Lenin, Report on the Tax in Kind
.jpg)
No comments