Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

what's left

Cuba and the real battle for democracy

with 6 comments

By Stephen Gowans

While Obama may have contrived to create the impression at the recent Summit of the Americas of
extending an open hand to Cuba, it’s clear that his aims are no different from those of George W.
Bush or any other of his presidential predecessors, all the way back to Kennedy. The point for the US
state has always been to recover Cuba as a field for US investment, and the surest way to achieve this
goal is to dismantle Cuba’s socialist system, or at least to severely limit it. So it is that after making the
obligatory rhetorical references to Cuba needing to improve its human rights situation (see Netfa
Freeman’s recent Black Agenda Report article on Cuba and US hypocrisy), Obama’s “aides outlined a
series of steps that Cuba…could do to demonstrate a willingness to open its closed society.” The
principle step was “allowing United States telecommunications companies to operate on the island.”
(1) In other words, moves would be made toward lifting the US embargo, if Cuba first made moves
toward opening its doors to US capital. Since the purpose of the blockade has always been to extort
this concession, how could it be said that the Obama policy is any different from that of his
predecessors?

That the prize is an “open society” in Cuba, which is to say, open to capitalist exploitation from
abroad, was made plain when Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, remarked that, “If the
objective is to see change in Cuba, it’s hard to see how a trade embargo would do anything other than
keep the economic system closed.” (2) Harper opposes the blockade, not because he wants to see
Cuba’s socialism thrive, but because he thinks lifting it is the best way to undermine Cuba’s socialist
economy. Engage Cuba has always been the Canadian position. Eventually it will come around to our
way of thinking.

Cuba’s socialist system offers a materially secure existence to all, with free health care and education
through university. It does this despite limited resources and in the face of nearly 50 years of
economic warfare by the United States. Imagine what it could accomplish if the United States wasn’t
continually trying to undermine it.

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 1 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

Prying open Cuba’s economic system would profit Western banks and corporations. But would it
benefit Cubans in the majority?

Not under conditions the US government would favour. The ideal situation from the point of view of
the US state and the corporate interests it represents is the replacement of Cuban socialism with an
open, multiparty electoral democracy – which to Westerners, even most leftists, is a political summum
bonum.

To those with lots of money, and the need to find places to invest it, multiparty electoral democracy
offers two advantages.

The first is that practically everyone is for it. Accordingly, marshalling support for measures to build
democracy abroad is never difficult. The US government can act in whatever way the structural
imperatives of the capitalist system demand without incurring too much opposition so long as it says
it’s promoting “democracy”, implicitly understood as regular electoral contests between two or more
parties (not the ancient’s rule by the rabble or Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat.)

The second advantage of a multiparty electoral democracy to the states and interlocked corporate
interests that favour it, is that the entire process can be easily hijacked by the rich. Modern elections,
popularity contests contested by ambitious exhibitionists who vie for the backing of wealthy patrons,
are driven by money. Generous campaign financing – or lack of it – can make or break a campaign.
Ambitious politicians know this, and make their peace with the reality, or are weeded out. Once in
office, they know that if they play their cards right, there are perks and handsome opportunities
awaiting them in their post-political lives. Easily circumvented electoral laws forbidding foreign
donations fail to stop funding from foreign sources rolling into candidates prepared to sell their
country’s sovereignty, natural resources and labor to the imperial center. It may be facile to put it this
way, but the golden rule of multiparty electoral democracy is that those who have the gold, rule. And
so democracy has travelled the path from rule by the plebs to the dictatorship of the proletariat to
ambitious lawyers chasing after the patronage of the rich.

Not in Cuba. But if Obama and Harper had their way, the golden rule would prevail. And what
would the consequences be? A minority of Cubans – those who facilitated the exploitation of their
country by foreign business interests — would benefit. But the majority would find their lives
becoming increasingly insecure, roiled by the vicissitudes of the market, and in turn, by decisions
made in foreign boardrooms. Hollow promises would be solemnly made. Cuba needs foreign
investment, and the way to get it is to turn Cuba into an investor-friendly environment. Do this, and
Cubans will be lifted out of poverty. The deception is evidenced in the state of Cuba’s Caribbean
neighbours, in Haiti, in Jamaica, where free trade and the open door and untrammelled foreign
investment have piled up misery and poverty at one end, while vast riches are accumulated at the
other, hundreds of miles away, to the north.

While lifting the trade embargo would be a welcome step, the act, by itself, would in no way
represent a lessening of hostility to Cuban socialism, only a different tact in the unceasing campaign
of corporate-dominated governments to recover Cuba as an open field for investment and cheap

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 2 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

labor.

There are no changes Cuba needs to make to accommodate the US; the US has not been wronged. But
it would be naïve to think that whatever concessions Washington makes, if any, will represent
Washington taking the first step along the path to peaceful co-existence. So long as the United States
remains a corporate-dominated (that is, a capitalist) society, and Cuba a socialist one, a structural
compulsion will exist to shape US foreign policy toward unceasing efforts to remove whatever
obstacles are in the way of profit-making. Since an egalitarian system which defines a materially
secure existence for all as the summum bonum is the antithesis of one based on the incessant drive of
the few to accumulate great wealth by exploiting the many, there shall never be peace between the
two. The only hope for peace is the destruction of one by the other, and in these days of renewed
economic crisis, it is clearer than usual which system it would be in the interests of the bulk of us to
prevail.

It may be objected that whatever the advantages of Cuban socialism in offering a materially secure
existence to all, it is still an existence at a lower level than enjoyed in advanced capitalist countries,
and therefore, how can socialism be the preferred system?

To this could be replied, first, that to the bulk of humanity, which lives outside the advanced
countries of the West, capitalism is hardly a system of consumer riches and abundance. It is instead a
system of dearth, misery, and ceaseless toil. This too is true of tens of millions of poor people who live
in the advanced capitalist world.

It is true that socialist countries have been poorer than advanced capitalist countries, but their lower
material level has not (and in the case of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European people’s
democracies had not) been caused by socialism; on the contrary, it had been largely overcome as a
result of socialism. The socialist countries started out at a lower level compared to their advanced
capitalist counterparts, building their productive assets without the benefits of the slavery,
colonialism and neo-colonialism advanced capitalist countries relied on to get rich.

In popular Western discourse, the division of the capitalist world between the affluent countries of
the north and the underdeveloped countries of south is glossed over. Capitalism is equated with the
West, and therefore with great affluence. Capitalism could just as readily be associated with the
south, and therefore with great poverty, for the south is as thoroughly capitalist as the north. But it
suits the purposes of spreading the capitalist doctrine to equate capitalism with a part of the world
whose affluence is due to capitalist imperialism rather than capitalism itself, as if any country that
embraced multiparty democracy and free markets would soon find itself a facsimile of the United
States.

In 1983, Shirley Ceresto found that if you divided countries into poor, middle income and rich, the
socialist countries occupied the middle range, even though most were poor before embarking on
paths of socialist development. In terms of satisfying basic human needs, the socialist countries did
better than all the capitalist countries combined, better than middle income capitalist countries, and

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 3 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

as well as advanced capitalist countries. (3) (What socialist countries offered that advanced capitalist
countries didn’t, was security of income, gender equality, and secure access to health care, education,
housing and necessities.)

As the socialist countries were struggling to catch up to the West, they found they needed to
safeguard their revolutions from the incessant threat of military intervention from a stalking capitalist
world. This diverted a significant portion of their more limited resources to military spending and
away from productive investments. Despite these handicaps, socialist countries did grow at a rapid
pace, and were closing the gap with their capitalist adversaries. At the same time, the socialist
community was becoming more egalitarian, both within and between countries, and an increasing
portion of necessary goods were available to their populations for free or at highly subsidized prices.
(4)

Nowhere is the incidental (and not causal) connection between socialism and poverty more evident
than in the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) where the regression to capitalism
has done nothing to close the gap with the former West Germany or make the lives of east Germans
better. After experiencing two decades of a resurrected capitalism, half of east Germans want to
return to what they had before. Reuters, hardly known for promoting socialism, revealed that a
public opinion poll had found that 52 percent of east Germans had no confidence in capitalism, and
most of them wanted to return to a socialist economy. Here’s what east Germans told Reuters’ (5).

Thomas Pivitt, a 46-year-old IT worker from east Berlin:

“We read about the ‘horrors of capitalism’ in school. They really got that right. Karl Marx was
spot on. I had a pretty good life before the Wall fell. No one worried about money because money
didn’t really matter. You had a job even if you didn’t want one. The communist idea wasn’t all
that bad.”

Hermann Haibel, a 76-year old retired blacksmith:

“I thought communism was shit but capitalism is even worse. The free market is brutal. The
capitalist wants to squeeze out more, more, more.”

Monika Weber, a 46-year-old city clerk:

“I don’t think capitalism is the right system for us. The distribution of wealth is unfair. We’re
seeing that now. The little people like me are going to have to pay for this financial mess with
higher taxes because of greedy bankers.”

Ralf Wulff:

“It took just a few weeks to realize what the free market economy was all about. It’s rampant
materialism and exploitation. Human beings get lost. We didn’t have the material comforts but
communism still had a lot going for it.”

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 4 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

The former socialist countries have not been transformed into the consumer paradises many of their
citizens believed they would become. Instead, citizens of former socialist countries have been
liberated of materially secure existences and are now dominated by decisions made in boardrooms,
many located in foreign countries, and are governed by ambitious exhibitionists who cater to the
interests of the wealthy by necessity (for if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have access to the resources
they need to get elected.) The same retrograde fate is the desired future for Cuba of the Obama
administration, and will remain the desired fate for Cuba of every succeeding administration, until
such a time as corporate interests no longer dominate the US state and the few no longer exploit the
many; that is, until the real battle for democracy is won. (6)

1. Ginger Thompson and Alexei Barrionuevo, “Rising expectations on Cuba follow Obama,” The
New York Times, April 19, 2009.
2. Ibid.
3. Shirley Ceresto, “Socialism, capitalism and inequality,” The Insurgent Sociologist, Vol. XI, No. 2,
Sprint 1982.
4. Albert Szymanski, Is the Red Flag Still Flying? The political economy of the Soviet Union today,
Zed Press, 1983.
5. Reuters, October 16, 2008.
6. “The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of
ruling class to win the battle of democracy,” wrote Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist
Manifesto. Democracy would be exercised through the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working
class would use its state powers to repress its class enemies and prevent their return. Since
dictatorship and democracy are today understood to be opposites, it’s difficult to grasp how a
dictatorship could be thought of as democratic. The democracy Marx and Engels were thinking of
was closer to the original definition of democracy than the current understanding based on universal
suffrage, representative democracy and regular multiparty elections. Democracy from antiquity had
always been a class affair, which is why anyone who mattered was against it. The Marxist view was
that capitalist democracy couldn’t be democracy in the original sense, because it allowed the majority
to be governed by the few, who use their money power to dominate elections and the state. In a
democracy as Marx and Engels understood it, the state would be dominated by the working class, its
policies aimed at the interests of the working class and hence encroaching upon those of the
capitalists, who would ardently seek to recover their previous advantages. The only way to secure
democracy against the counter-revolutionary designs of the capitalists would be to be dictatorial in a
new way – against the capitalist class. To socialist countries, most of which had had no tradition of
liberal democracy, this meant that elections needed to be dominated by the Communist Party, as the
leader of the working class. What was clear was that no party committed to reversing the gains of the
revolution could be allowed to operate freely. In Cuba, elections are not party-based, and the
Communist Party has no role in them. Instead, individuals stand for election. It is understood that
elections are carried out within the socialist system and that the reversal of socialism is not on the
table.

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 5 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

About these ads

You May Like

1. New US
Currency Law Is Going To Hit You
Hard 2 weeks ago trk.vikingstrk.co
The Crux (sponsored)

Written by what's left

April 30, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Posted in Cuba, Democracy, Socialism

2. 4 Stages to

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

I was born in an Eastern European country which was formerly communist. My Dad did not have
much love for that system, but even he admitted that there were good things about it.

1. Paid vacations for all. There were government resorts where you paid a pittance to go with your
family and not have to worry about being broke after coming back.

2. Free health care. When there was a public health risk because of a disease, ie flu, the authorities
immediately setup mobile vaccination units and told people to immediately get vaccinated. If you
did not, they came to your house and made sure you got one (for free, of course)

3. You always had a job and when you got old, you were guaranteed a pension and could live out
the rest of your days in peace.

4. It was against the law to be unemployed. If someone did not want to work, and they were
healthy, the government found a job for you.

5. Public order and a very low crime rate.

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 6 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

This author is right about the fact that socialist countries may not have offered the high end
luxuries that capitalist countries offered, but in a socialist country everyone was guaranteed a safe
life with all the basics taken care of.
Many people there would like to go back to the old socialist system.
The world has two choices: luxuries and high tech toys in a capitalist system, or do without them
but have all the basics taken care of in a socialist system.
It’s really a trade-off.

Paul

May 1, 2009 at 1:21 am

Reply
Great article. Crystal clear! I’m honored to be referenced in such great work; impeccable analysis
and richly informative.

netfa

May 1, 2009 at 6:40 am

Reply
Paul, there is just one thing you (or your dad) forgot to mention: that these so-called “luxuries and
high tech toys” under the capitalist system are ONLY FOr THE MINOrITY OF THE WOrLD’s
POPULATION! And that these luxuries are being paid for by blood, sweat,tears and deaths of
millions and millions of the majority on our planet. So, to change the system is not a trade-off; it is
simply the only way for the majority to have any chance of a decent life and future for their
children. And for that we must stop the West from ripping off the rest of the world in order to
have their so much loved “high tech toys”. Many Westerners are addicted to this lifestyle and
won’t give it up voluntarily for the sake of the mankind. And I don’t think that the world should
sit and wait until they come to their senses and change their mind.

Irina

May 1, 2009 at 6:49 am

Reply
We in the Capitalist Free World do not need paid vacations, free health care, guaranteed pensions,
or full employment.

We have something much better.

Swine Flu!

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 7 of 8
Cuba and the real battle for democracy | what's left 8/18/15, 6:26 PM

“Political Lies and Media Disinformation regarding the Swine Flu Pandemic”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13433

AR

May 1, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Reply
Excellent piece by Gowans, especially in these times when Cuba is in the news and politicians and
the media perpetuate confusion and disinformation about Socialist Cuba. No doubt, Capitalism is
the systematic exploitation of labor and the accumulation of profits into the hands of few AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE MANY. This is the story in every capitalist country, and glaringly so in pre-
revolutionary Cuba. Since the revolution, Socialist Cuba aimed to liberate society’s wealth, as
created by the workers, to meet the needs of the people through public ownership of the means of
production and economic planning. Cuba’s triumphs, as Gowans mentions, are staggering when
we consider the many political and material obstacles US imperialism has and continues to
sabatage it with.

Victor Fernandez

May 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Reply
if US had cuban style democracy, there would have been no neocons in office, and no 9-11.

brian

May 4, 2009 at 4:10 am

Reply

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. The Journalist v1.9 Theme.

 Follow

Follow “what's left”

Build a website with WordPress.com

https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cuba-and-the-real-battle-for-democracy/ Page 8 of 8