Eulogising Fidel
[This is not a complete analysis of Fidel Castro, the most important leader of the Cuban revolution, nor are we in a position to take it up. We want to just raise certain questions on the way Fidel is being eulogized after his death - Ed B]
Fidel Castro is eulogized and hailed as an iconic hero by different sections of society - the bourgeois politicians of ruling establishments, the revisionist-reformist parties and even the communist revolutionaries. What do these disparate sections hail him for? To the established bourgeois politicians from the so-called third-world countries including ours, Castro is a hero of the Non-aligned Movement amidst cold war theatrics of the two imperialist super-powers. To the revisionist, pro-establishment, communists he has been not only an anti-imperialist crusader who defied the US imperialism for more than half a century but also the "founder of the first-ever socialist state in the Western hemisphere" and leader of one of the last bastions of communism. What was he actually to the revolutionary communists who hail him? An anti-imperialist leader who led the successful Cuban revolution? Or a communist who kept aloft the banner of socialism? Or something else? Even the communist revolutionaries or the revolutionary working class representatives seem to be divided and confused over this.
Fidel has been the most prominent leader of the Cuban revolution, who after some previous abortive attempts, led his team of guerrillas in successfully toppling the dictatorial regime of Batista in 1959. Then with Fidel, Che Guevara and their small team on the seat of power, various programme for extensive reforms were initiated. In May 1959 itself, a law of agrarian reform was adopted to break up latifundias and form cooperatives (even land distribution to the peasants individually was skipped on instructions of Fidel), a national institute for agrarian reform IRNA was established for carrying out active, large-scale reforms. Later through another law, decision to nationalize lands above a ceiling was taken. Further they took the step of nationalization of industries, such as nationalisation of the US owned sugar mills. Confronting the threats by giant US oil companies refusing to accept Russian crude oil, Fidel and his team took no time in nationalizing the refineries, evicting big US names like Shell, Texaco etc.Taking into account the poor & wretched conditions of the masses, programme for extensive education, housing, medical facilities were also launched. Thus in case of a very backward country, in which the US had the 3rd biggest investment and GATT imposed open-door relaxations for dumping of US products, Fidel ushered in large-scale reforms in the lives of the masses through the revolution. Fidel and his group of revolutionaries sought to break up the shackles of imperialist domination and proceeded in the direction of indigenous development of Cuba.
What would Marxists say about the land reform to break feudal latifundias, eviction of imperialist capital, garnering of capital from different sources within the country, as well as education & housing for the masses?
Further, during the second half of 20th century, Fidel and Che Guevara became an inspiration for the anti-imperialist toiling masses of Latin America and also in numerous other imperialist dominated countries of the world. In the midst of a long history of repeated instances of forcible intervention of US imperialism, that subverted national democratic governments all over central and Latin America, covertly and overtly, armed and otherwise, the Cuban revolution arose and remained as a new star of hope for the oppressed masses of these regions seeking national liberation and a democratic order, often coming forward in solidarity. Particularly because in spite of a constant threat and economic embargo of the US, for six decades and more, the Cuban revolution kept aloft the anti-imperialist banner of revolt. Hence the continuing popularity and salutes for Fidel and Che. Moreover, for the world at large, Fidel has also been one of the leading figures of the Non Aligned Movement of the countries dominated by US imperialism, especially in the phase of bitter imperialist, super-power rivalry during the Cold War era. Undeniably Fidel Castro?s role of a staunch anti-imperialist, specifically against US imperialism, won him this stature.
These were already the declared tasks of Fidel and his band of revolutionaries prior to the revolution. And on capturing power they were sincere and prompt in implementing this in the Cuban reality. Add to these the nationalization of industries, and land above a limit and even formation of cooperatives run by peasants collectively. So can?t it be called a democratic revolution, pursuing anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks? Definitely yes.
But does the role of Fidel end here with red salutes and eulogies? Undoubtedly they initiated wide spread reform measures in Cuba with the intent for large-scale social changes, through agrarian reforms, nationalization and centralized plans for economic development and industrialization drives. But in spite of all these, the Cuban revolution got stuck up in grave problems within few years. The Cuban economy depended on export of one very important product, sugar and that in turn depended largely on the US market for its large quota of imports since long time. But with the Cuban revolution becoming successful, the US imposed embargo by cutting of imports of their big sugar quota and then stopping the supply of major chunk of oil to Cuba.The US giant oil monopolies tried to block supply of crude oil by refusing to refine the Soviet crude. Supply of spares from the US essential for the industries in Cuba, for the sugar mills, oil refineries and other major industries controlled by the US monopolies were also stopped. Added to this in April 1961 the US launched an attack using armed mercenaries, widely known as the infamous Bay of Pigs invasion, although the Cuban forces thwarted it successfully. Thus with its very limited resources it was a big jolt created by the US blockade on all sorts of trade and imports essential for survival of Cuba.
Fidel and his team took the path of overcoming this by entering into agreements for aid and imports primarily from the Soviet Union, as well as initially from China and some East European countries. Soviet Union became its major buyer of sugar in exchange for supplying oil, industrial technology and goods. But with this the Cuban revolution became entangled in another problem - the costs of becoming associated with USSR, another super-power ruled by a revisionist communist party, which soon started revealing its imperialist intentions in different regions of the world in the phase of cold-war. The result of adopting this path of economic development have been, the Cuban economy led by Fidel and his revolutionaries limped along and remained dependent. Earlier prior to the revolution Cuba was dependent on imperialist US and later after the Fidel-led revolution it became dependent on the revisionist forces of Soviet Union and some other East European so-called "socialist" countries. Initially in early 1960s Cuba found itself caught between China and the Soviet Union, the two leading countries in socialist transition locked up in embittered relationship amidst the Great Debate. But thereafter it remained throughout a staunch ally of Soviet Union and became dependent on it. Many a times the goods imported were inferior and trade was not in the true sense a support to Cuba as an ally of socialist countries. Che burst out in a seminar of Afro-Asian nations at Algiers about the unequal terms of trade imposed by the so-called socialist countries which acted against the national liberation struggles and their governments in backward countries. The cost of dependence on the Soviet Union led to further dependence and blind imposition and imitation of Soviet model of centralized planning and nationalization with no indigenous development. Thus with, on one hand, the continuously looming threat and embargo of the US and on the other, the exploitation of Cuba by the revisionist-led Soviet Union, Cuba as a backward, underdeveloped country remained on the receiving end. The result - attempts by the Cuban revolutionaries at top-down rash industrialization drives led to unplanned surplus on one hand and shortages of essentials putting the lives of masses in jeopardy. In 1970 Fidel declared a plan for a bumper sugar harvest, the main commodity for export. It failed miserably. The masses remained at the mercy of a parallel economy that thrived through black market, although initially just after the revolution, for a number of years, they showed much motivation hoping for a drastic development to occur in their backward and wretched existence.What gradually emerged with passage of time was easy lay-off, unemployment, power shortage, anarchy, flight of Cubans from the country revealinga sorry state of affairs. Beneath the veil of state capitalism what masqueraded as socialism was found to be in effect something far from it.
After the fall of Soviet Union, from the period of 1990s, in due course even the veneer of state capitalism that assumed the name of socialism peeled off revealing more nakedly the capitalist course adopted by the PCC, the communist party of Cuba. Decisions more and more proceeded for reviving the accounting system making individual firms answerable on the basis of profitability and financial efficiency in the lines of capitalist states, instead of transition towards accountability and control for and by the working masses as in a socialist society ensuring employment for all, equal opportunities and rights, abolishing class exploitation. Naturally with passage of time what followed during this period of 1990s is a government decision to cut 10 lakh jobs in the state sector which employed 85% of the work-force, abolishing the rationing system that served public distribution of basic food and other essentials. From the 1980s privatization of state-owned firms started. A new emerging elite section bought these. Capitalist management gurus like Peter Drucker became the syllabus for training of the Cuban government officials. Foreign companies built luxury hotels, golf courses for elites, mined nickel - an important commodity exported and owned agricultural plantations. The Castro regime allowed leasing of state owned property to foreign investors for as long as 99 years. The Cuban economy showed all the diseases inherent in its capitalist economy - huge deficit on balance of payments, dependence on imports for food, oil, technology etc. It was during this so-called Special Period that Fidel said, "the Cuban model doesn't work for us anymore." In December 2010, Raul Castro said, "We either rectify things, or we run out of time to continue to skirt the abyss [and] we sink." About 35 years ago during the 1st Congress of the Cuban Communist Party it was stated: "In the first decade of our Revolution, when the blockade was most acute and the country was desperately defending itself against imperialist aggressions, our economic growth was slow.......Between 1971 and 1975, it already reached the truly impressive average of over 10 per cent a year. But there is an objective difficulty in maintaining this pace of economic development in the country?s present conditions: the input of growing quantities of raw materials and production resources which have to be imported and which are beyond the possibilities of our import capacity........" Thus Fidel?s Cuba started with backwardness, raising a hope of development, but failed to attain self-reliance coming out of dominance of big powers. Fidel?s team haggled with imperialists and revisionists fruitlessly for better terms. After the fall of Soviet Union, it became open to policies of capitalist liberalization-privatization-globalization. What was carried out claiming it to be socialism was nothing but nationalization of major industries and a number of welfare measures for the masses. With passage of time, the glaring discrepancies have undeniably revealed once again that capitalist economy or state capitalism does not solve the problems of masses. Also neither nationalization nor a slew of welfare measures for the masses is ever socialism. Even the capitalist countries can adopt such measures at different times.
Cuba has been a backward, small country. Their only path could have been a thoroughgoing people?s democratic revolution by arousing the radical democratic classes of society?the workers, peasants and toilers - for carrying out anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks. Then skipping the capitalist path of development it could further make its transition towards socialism, with the aroused working class, the rural proletariat and other semi-proletariat sections - the poor peasants. But without being part of the world socialist movement and without being led by countries in transition to socialism, for a backward country like Cuba this could not be possible and that is what emerged with time. With the revolutionary working class losing power in countries with socialist transition like USSR etc to the revisionists and capitalist-roaders, since 1950s onwards, the international centre for world socialist movement had already been absent. It more and more reminds us that the Cuban revolutionaries like Fidel, Che and others have emerged in an era when proletarian revolution had been overshadowed by a phase of defeat of the first forward march of the international socialist movement. What they accomplished in Cuba was nothing less than the fruits of democratic revolution, but it was not at all a people?s democratic revolution led by the working class surging ahead towards socialism.
From this arises the more basic question - was Fidel and his comrades themselves truly a socialist, a communist? In spite of such odds in a phase of defeat and dominance of revisionism in the world socialist movement, did Cuba?s revolution and its leadership stand tall with the banner of communist principles of the revolutionary working class? Definitely not. Instead they carried with them the inherent problems that led them far away from this. Fidel and his comrades, even Che Guevara, did not mince words in declaring that they did not adhere to any particular ideology or theory. Che himself clearly spelt out - ?the principal actors of this revolution had no coherent theoretical criteria?. They applied John Dewey?s ideas for schools, Jose Marti?s ideas of national liberation and experimented with Che?s making of a ?new moral man? and forced industrialization plans introduced from the top. They proceeded with a combination of diverse eclectic ideas. Hubermann and Sweezy in 1960s said that at the most, it could be called rational humanism. Marxism to them seemed part of older concepts, relevant, but that should be added or modified with new ideas. Fidel Castro himself was part of a nationalist organization prior to revolution and initially had ideas of reestablishing the 1940s constitution. He declared himself to be a Marxist-Leninist in 1965 only after the Cuban missile crisis. Socialist movement, quite contrary to this, needs coherent understanding and a programme that takes a living revolutionary shape with the class struggle of the working class and toiling masses. Thus Lenin said without revolutionary theory there cannot be the revolutionary movement.
Although at one point, talking about the success of toppling of the dictator Batista, Fidel Castro and his comrades acknowledged that the mass support of peasantry played a very important role during the Sierra Maestra guerrilla days, that made capture of power possible, but still they didn?t go into class analysis of Cuban society, the role and potential of the working masses and the necessity of the revolutionary alliance of the working class and peasantry, of leadership of the working class to create the society free from exploitation. It was essentally a petty bourgeois leadership in patron-client relationship with the masses dependent on these leaders who came to power seeking radical reforms for democracy. Naturally there was no such revolutionary working class struggle that fought tooth and nail against efforts for restoration of capitalism during the phase of transition to a socialist state. Fidel and his team had no such thoughts or plans. Rather with time, as seen, capitalism was allowed to be restored with full freedom. For a backward country like Cuba still in the throes of imperialist exploitation, anti-imperialist struggle quite naturally remained their most important agenda. Hence they got involved in the emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement that unfolded from meetings of oppressed backward countries at Bandung and Belgrade meetings promoted and supported by the Soviet Union.
Fidel and the Cuban leaders siding with Soviet revisionist leaders resulted in more and more influence by the revisionist Soviet policies. Especially with the later Soviet revisionist politics casting its long shadow on the world socialist movement, socialism had become distorted and reduced to mere centralized economic planning, nationalization and five-year plans. Missing had been the role and the class struggle of the working class. Ultimately, the result of this inherent weakness of Fidel and company has been revealed in the Cuban experiment which bore all the marks of the setting of defeat and degeneration in the world socialist movement. Fidel and his company took the wrong side and followed it with unquestioning allegiance to the Soviets, even to the extent of becoming allies in Soviet Union?s military aggressions, such as in the military aggression on Afghanistan. This also brought to the forefront the inconsistency of Fidel or Cuba?s anti-imperialist role. In the international struggle between revisionism and revolutionary wings of communist movement, the leaders of the Cuban revolution kept themselves encaged within the fold of revisionist politics, preached by the Soviet Union. And all these were in the name of socialism, communism and its red flag!
Definitely that has been a false flag. For that the degenerated socialists and communists of diverse shades and hues like the CPIM and CPI in this country can eulogise Fidel as a communist. But can the communist revolutionaries due to their disarrayed, hopeless condition salute and hail Fidel as a lone beacon of hope, as the leader of one of the last bastions of communism? Cannot they distinguish the real from the fake masquerading as real? The reality for Fidel?s Cuba is, it not only got stuck up in the defeat and resultant distortion of the first campaign of socialist movement, but its leaders Fidel and others never stood up recognizing the roots of revisionism. Rather they sided and became a part of it. Consequently what happened could not be otherwise and that truth must be recognized. The WSF variety of phony, revisionist socialism is a fruitless and dangerously diverting exercise, still prevailing and confusing the real communist movement. Hailing Fidel means hailing of the line practiced by Cuba and the total revisionist camp, which has been proved disastrous for whole socialist movement. The tough but real task is recognizing and struggling against that and working for the revival of the real communist movement from the present disarrayed, degenerated condition. It is not possible to hail Fidel and work for the rejuvenation of world socialist movement.
Comments:
No Comments for View