[Marxism] CHINA AND CUBA II

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(This is the second round of discussion on China and
Cuba which appears on the GreenLeft_discussion list.
I just posted my comments here moments ago tonight.
Given the very great importance attached to Cuba's
links with China, I thought Marxmailistas would find
this of interest.)
====================================================

Hi, Michael -

Thanks for this thoughtful discussion. A few points
in response. My sense is you may well be right about
China engaging in a process of capitalist accumulation.
I'm not quite sure how this is done when there remains
a political regime led by the Communist Party of China.

Still, I don't know that much about China and think more
of it in relation to its relations with Cuba, which in
recent years have warmed and become much better than
during Cuba's alliance with the USSR, that's for sure!

Whatever the "class nature of the Chinese state" as such
topics would be discussed in the Trotskyist world, China
is helping Cuba stave off Washington's blockade in a most
vital way: through investments in Cuba's nickel industry,
and by trading with Cuba on normal commercial terms (i.e.,
credit for purchase and time, upwards of a year, to pay
off its purchases. Compare that with Cuba's purchases of
agricultural commodities from the United States, where
it's cash in advance, not of receipt, but now even in
advance of SHIPMENT, an extraordinary economic practice.
That's why Cuba gave Hu Jin-tao the Jose Marti medal in
December when he made that triumphal tour of the Latin
American continent, concluding in Cuba. The Jose Marti
medal for Hu Jin-tao was a Cuban way of saying that as
far as Cuba was concerned, China was helping Cuba to
maintain its independence, a very important thing.

You say that some of the weaknesses of the Soviet economy
are replicated in Cuba, but you're not specific. You may
be right, but without your being specific, it's hard to
develop an opinion. Naturally, when Cuba was totally and
completely dependent on the USSR for its survival, Soviet
influence was naturally rather high. That's no longer a
factor, which is one of the reasons such thinkers as Leon
Trotsky are now beginning to be discussed in some Cuban
circles. They wouldn't have done that during the alliance
with the USSR, would then?

It's really a shame that my computer is in such trouble now
so I cannot send you some material about the wonderful film
from Germany called GOOD-BYE, LENIN! They showed it at the
Havana Film Festival in December 2003, and I showed it to a
few friends on my laptop during my recent visit to Cuba.
I hope you get a chance to see the film, a touching evocation
of both a son's love for his mother, and the difficulties we
could observe in the German Democratic Republic. But there is
one profound, qualitative difference between East Germany and
Cuba: Cuba had a genuine indigenous revolution, while the East
German experience began with Soviet occupation and there never
was an indigenous revolution. This, when protest developed in
East Germany with its political system, a nationalist element
played a vital role. Cuba's dissidents, for the most part,
aren't nationalist, since their goal is the replacement of
Cuba's system with US domination.

Your observation that the fall of the USSR, and the consequent
loss of its massive subsidies did NOT result in Cuba's fall
was attributable to the Revolution's popularity is quite true.

In addition, the Cuban leadership showed great imagination in
choosing to move toward the use of tourism, of legalizing the
possession of the dollar, and accepting significant foreign
investment. These three played a decisive role in preventing
the collapse which so many had thought would take place.

It does seem there are no political problems facing the CCP
leadership domestically within China. That may well be why
the US is cranking up a bit of squeaky hostility toward China
regarding Taiwan. On the other hand, the US, like many other
countries, is pretty much addicted to Chinese products, which
are cheaper than their competitors from so many other countries.

Finally, it's really peculiar to me that so many on the left are
not joining up in all that China-bashing which we're seeing in
the capitalist press, but only with a leftish slant. I know that
the Chinese have made something of a Faustian bargain by letting
all that foreign capital in. They're developing their economy at
the fastest level on the planet. But people in the west (which I
suppose includes Australia and New Zealand, too) seem to think
they always know what's going on. Chinese civilization has been
around for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS. While the price for ordinary
Chinese seems quite high, on the world scale, it seems to me
China's playing a generally progressive role. OK, you think it
is contradictory? Agreed. The industrial revolution caused one
hell of a lot of trouble for the working people in its day.
Big dirty factories replaced the more quiet rural lifestyles
of the manor during feudalism. But the growth of the modern
industrial system was, in the end, a "good thing" and not a
"bad thing". Perhaps something like that is happening today
in China? In this sense, your comment about the prematurity
of the 1949 revolution, and the rise today of a proletariat
in Chinese industry might turn out right. Time will tell.

Today it seems that China-bashing has replaced Soviet-bashing
among many on the political left, particularly among those who
come from a Trotskyist background, which is the one I come from.

It seems to me that before we leap up to shout "condemn" and
"betray", as enough do about Cuba's acceptance of investment
from abroad, we might want to put more energy into trying to
"understand"...


Walter Lippmann
http://www.walterlippmann.com
=================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: michael berrell [mailto:dennyben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:43 AM
To: GreenLeft_discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [GreenLeft_discussion] CHINA AND CUBA II

Walter,

  The article I was referring to concerning Castro and Cuba appeared
on this list not more than ten days ago, sometimes its easy to lose
track of time on the list and I was under the impression that either
you or Norm posted it. I'll try and hunt it up and send it to the
list. In a nutshell the article quoted Castro as saying that Cuba
had successfully weathered the crisis caused by the collapse of the
Soviet Union and that now it was in a position to revert to a
classic command economy with over 90% of the economy being in state
ownership. The article was headed something like "The Sun
disappeared from the sky when the Soviet Union collapsed but now the
Cuban State is emerging phoenix like from the ashes." In addition
there have been several other stories concerning Cuba's attempts to
reassert central control over its economy. In any case China and
Cuba are heading in two opposite directions.

  Why do I describe Cuba's political system/economy as
representing "High Brezhnevism"?  As you would know Cuba's political
institutions as we know them today were not formalised until
1975/76. The reformulated Cuban Communist Party held its first
congress in December 1975, the Cuban people voted on a new
constitution in February, 1976, elections for a National Assembly of
People's Power were held in September 1976. The new constitution
came into effect in December 1976. Castro relinquished the office of
Prime Minister and assumed the Presidency.  The period 1976/77 may
be described as "High Brezhnevism" in the Soviet Union. There was a
mood of optimism in the Soviet Union as many felt that the Cold War
was shifting the Soviet Union's way following the end of the Vietnam
War and the Soviet Union with the help of Cuba was beginning to flex
its muscles in Africa. In the period 1976/77 Leonid Brezhnev rose to
the apex of the Soviet political system seeing off his rivals, re-
writing the constitution in 1977, assuming several high offices
culminating in a triumphant presiding over celebrations for the 60th
Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1977.

By equating Cuba's political system with high Brezhnevism I am in no
way implying a criticism merely making an observation. If it works
for Fidel so be it. And with Soviet subsidies it did work. Of course
there has been some tinkering with the system, the National Assembly
of People's Power is now directly elected rather than indirectly
elected through popular assembles but essentially Cuba's political
system remains modelled on the political institutions as they
existed in the Soviet Union under "High Brezhnevism" in the years
1976/77.

  As you may know Walter I have just commenced a Masters of
International Relations and after lectures I often go down to a
little used part of the Library called "Stack" a sort of archive
which stores old editions of "Time", "Life", "Newsweek", "The
Bulletin" (an Australian periodical) which are no longer kept in the
main part of the Library. The last couple of evenings I have been
going over the period 1975/76, looking at China in the period
leading up to the death of Mao, the early faltering attempts to
construct a Communist society in Vietnam and the period leading up
to the 25th Communist Party Congress, held in Moscow, February 24 to
March 5. (Incidentally the first congress of the CPSU at which
Castro made a personal appearance.) There are several good articles
even then examining strengths and weaknesses in the Soviet economy.
As you know I am of the opinion that some of the weaknesses of the
Soviet economy are replicated in Cuba.

  Don't get me wrong I'm a strong supporter of the Cuban Revolution
and I think Cuba has done a terrific job in providing first class
health and education services in what is an essentially developing
nation but some of her problems are not all that dissimilar to the
problems which plagued say East Germany in the last years of its
existence. And let me just say that its nothing short of a miracle
that Cuba has survived the collapse of the Soviet Union with its
socialist system more or less in tact. One article I read stated
that Soviet subsidies were worth something like 5 million$ a day to
Cuba. For all intents and purposes Cuba should have sunk when the
Soviet Union collapsed. The fact that it didn't is testimony to the
genuine popularity of the revolution.

 Just some observations on the China debate. I've lost track of who
said it but someone argued that China was somehow still Socialist
because the armed forces and the banking sector are still under
state ownership. This is not really a good criterion for Socialism.

The armed forces are under government direction in all countries and
here in Australia until relatively recently we had a highly
regulated banking system with a high degree of government ownership
of banks both the Commonwealth Bank and the various state owned
banks. One of the cruellest things the Communist Party of China has
allowed is the dismantling of the iron rice bowl. This hasn't been
mentioned so far in the discussion. As you may know I argue in
addition to the public ownership of the means of Production,
Distribution and Exchange Socialism also entails a commitment to the
equitable distribution of society's wealth. On this criteria China
is failing spectacularly. Today China has one of the most
inequitable distribution of wealth of anywhere in the world.

  However having said that I have a slightly different view on what
is happening in China to most on the list. I maintain that China
today is passing through the Capitalist stage of its economic
development. It is undergoing a belated 18th/19th Century type
Industrial Revolution. In addition to the undoubted misery
experienced by China's proletariat she is also experiencing the
spectacular growth of her Productive Forces. All this is in line
with orthodox Marxist theory. The seeds of a future Communist
Revolution are beginning to germinate. The rapid growth of the
Productive Forces, the appearance of a sizeable proletariat. In a
sense China's 1949 Communist Revolution was a premature one.

It occurred before the material base for a successful transition to
Socialism had been established. China prior to 1978 was a relatively
egalitarian society but one overwhelmingly characterised by
generalisation of want. It displayed all the classic symptoms of an
attempt to build Socialism in conditions of material scarcity. Marx
had always insisted that the Communist society would represent a
higher stage of development taking as its premise the most advanced
level of the productive forces developed under Capitalism. Communism
would rest therefore squarely on the achievements of Capitalism. Any
attempt to by-pass the Capitalist stage of development would
necessarily lack the wherewithal, the building materials with which
to successfully construct a Communist society.

  That said observing the meeting of the National People's Congress
NPC on television it occurs to me that considering the chaos of the
Cultural Revolution, the uncertainty following the death of Mao and
loss of legitimacy experienced by the party following the
Tienannamen incident, it is  remarkable just how secure the party's
position appears to be in China today.






_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism