First Published: In Struggle! No. 234, January 20, 1981
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Malcolm and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
On January 20, 1981, Fidel Castro gave the closing speech at the Communist Party of Cuba’s second Congress, held from January 17-20. He addressed almost 150 foreign delegations representing pro-Soviet communist parties, liberation movements and even some social democratic parties of the Socialist international (SI)[1], as well as more than a million Cubans. This fact alone is a measure of the prestige which the CPC has among many political trends and working people around the world.
But the economic situation in Cuba, brought to light during the congress, and the path which Castro is proposing to the peoples struggling against imperialism, give food for thought and should lead us to question the supposedly revolutionary path which Castro daims to be defending.
One of the main concerns of the congress was the economic situation in Cuba. Despite an overall situation envied by many of the peoples dominated by U.S. imperialism, the main report presented by Castro revealed that the objectives of the 5-year plan adopted at the First Congress in 1975 were not attained. Economic growth reached only 4%, despite an objective of 6% and the industrialization plan met with difficulties. These results are of some importance since the objectives set at the last congress were consciously modest.
Today, the Cuban leaders persist in explaining these difficulties by referring to the same difficult conditions which they have invoked for many years now to explain their policies. Reference is made to Cuba’s ever-present situation of underdevelopment which dates back to the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship (complete dependence on the fluctuation of sugar prices manipulated by the monopolies, extreme poverty of the population, and so on), the economic blockade declared by the U.S., invasion attempts, etc.
Today, in addition to the historic conditions, there are the repercussions of the fluctuations in the prices of oil and sugar on the Cuban economy, with oil moving ever higher and sugar dropping, as well as the deep economic crisis in the Western imperialist countries. It is to be noted that the report is completely silent about the economic crisis in the U.S.S.R. and the so-called socialist camp. Cuba is certainly experiencing the backlash from that, especially since between 1975-79, the U.S.S.R.’s share in Cuban commerce ran from 48% to 67%. It should also be pointed out that the key role played by the production of sugar in the Cuban economy is the result of Cuba’s place in the international division of labour imposed by the U.S.S.R.
Given this situation, the Second Congress underlined the need for increased mobilization in production and stepped up plans to implement the new system to manage the economy which was first adopted at the First Congress.
At the time, this system was presented as an answer to the idealist errors of the 1965-70 period when it was claimed that all forms of market economy had abruptly been eliminated. The system clearly draws inspiration from the experience of the economic reforms introduced in the U.S.S.R. by Khrushchev in the early sixties, which are judged as positive. These reforms underlined the importance of “the law of value, the necessity that in all enterprises, including State enterprises, there are buy and sell relations, and that within these relations (the market categories) function as indispensable instruments for measuring the use we make of our productive resources... in order to decide which investments are the most advisable, and to know which enterprises...work the best...”
The result of these reforms is much autonomy for the enterprises, the right for the most profitable to keep part of their profits as a stimulus, to produce and sell marginal products on their own and to set up their own bonus systems for their workers. In practice, this leads to the creation of a privileged group within the working class formed of workers from the most productive, modern factories.
Thus, at the 2nd Congress, Castro could state that “the plan now deals with categories such as investments, costs, and profits”. For the mass organizations, he fixed the objective of promoting the application of another part of the reform, a generalized system of wages based on production bonuses. It was also decided to put an end to rationing of products which are considered non-essential. Although their prices will have to be raised, they will be put on the open market where independent peasants can get rid of part of their produce. The system will only be fully implemented in 1985.
A long debate could be held on the specific virtues or the inevitability of any one of these measures in a country which is just coming out of a period of under-development. But taken globally, the past experiences with this system in the U.S.S.R. and the other Eastern European countries have shown that they do not lead to socialism. On the contrary, they lead to the development of a new bourgeoisie and promote the appearance of a new form of exploitation of the working class.
We are not trying to deny the reality of the difficult concrete conditions which the Cuban leaders and people had to face. Our efforts to make an assessment of the struggle for socialism as a basis for a scientific criticism of modern revisionism, lead us to pay much attention to the inevitable burden carried by the different people’s and anti-imperialist revolutions, like the one in Cuba, due to the backwardness of these societies and their isolation in a world still dominated by imperialism.
However this does not lead us to accept the affirmations of the Cuban leaders which claim that the policies they have been applying over the past years have s something to do with the building of socialism, nor that they should be presented as such to the many other peoples whose eyes are turned towards Cuba. The same difficulty arises on the subject of Cuba’s foreign policy which it also claims was established in the name of socialism.
Over the years, Cuban foreign policy has gained a reputation for its support to revolutionary struggles, such as its current support for the struggles in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. The support given these struggles is real and is underlined in the report. However, try as we might, we are unable to find a single line in the report where the revolutionary path taken up by these peoples is given as an example of the path to follow. Thus, while the struggle of the Salvadoran people is given but brief mention, the bourgeois movement of the non-aligned countries highlighted in the report as the strategy to rid these countries of imperialist domination. The report states “a period of wide-scale international co-operation must be ushered in in the world” and “it is still time... to coordinate the interests of the developing capitalist countries, the socialist countries and the developing countries so as to find constructive proposals”.
Consequently, the report salutes the apostles of the North-South dialogue, such as the Socialist International leaders who act in the name of European imperialism, notably West-German imperialism. It especially considers the growing presence of social democracy in Latin America, as well as the “social-democratization” of the former bourgeois parties and oligarchies as important and positive.
So, at a time when the entire continent is in turmoil, the Cuban leaders are not putting forward the revolutionary path of armed struggle against imperialism and local reactionary forces as the solution. Pointing out the danger represented by Reagan’s election, to the point of praising Carter, they suggest that the solution is the emergence “of a current which is independent of Washington” grouping together different countries dominated by their bourgeoisies, led by the richest nations such as Mexico and even Brazil, a country which is still controlled by a clique of fascist military men.
These policies, which undoubtedly correspond to the specific interests of the Cuban leaders, are in complete conformity with the political objectives pursued by the U.S.S.R. in Latin America. Cuba’s role is to link itself with and support the revolutionary movements so as to have them riding on the coattails of Russian imperialist interests. Every page of the report can be interpreted as unconditional support for what is referred to as “the U.S.S,R.’s peace policy”. Thus, on the subject of Poland, for example, one can read that “it is absolutely beyond doubt that the socialist camp has the right to preserve integrity, to survive and to resist, at all costs, imperialist attacks”, thus giving advance support to an invasion ,which the U.S.S.R. has been threatening since the fall.
In the current context of war preparations and the sharpening of contradictions between the imperialist blocs, this support for Soviet policy which the Cuban leaders are defending within a number of revolutionary movements where they have an audience is quite alarming. In the end, the danger is they may mobilize these peoples to support the aims of Russian imperialism, and in the short run, to liquidate their own projects for social transformation in the name of conciliation with the pro-Soviet and other reformist trends. This should certainly be the subject of a deep and broad debate on a question which is of importance to many progressives, anti-imperialists and revolutionaries.
[1] Those presset included the United Leadership of the Guatemalan Revolutionary Organization, the Sandanista National Liberation Front of Nicaragua, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front of El Salvador, the Polisario Front, the South-West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), ZANU and several Chilean organizations.