Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:57:53 -0500
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: capitalist cuba?


Tahir:
>>I don't agree with the idea of transition from feudalism to capitalism,
which was I think a purely European phenomenon at the dawn of capitalism
itself. What we have in Cuba seems to me rather capitalist development; if
there is a transition it is from a backward, 'underdeveloped' form of
capitalism to more modern and developed one.<<

As I have pointed out, there is no such thing as capitalist development to
a "more modern and developed one" in the 3rd world. If you believe this,
you don't understand imperialism. Imperialism develops underdevelopment in
countries based on mining or export agriculture. It produces unemployment
and underemployment. People in Cuba, Colombia, Vietnam, etc. do not rise up
because the country is being "developed" and "modernized". They rise up
because they lack gainful employment. In other words, they do not to
utilize "refusal to work" as a strategy since they lack work to begin with.
Your analysis of 3rd world economic development seems influenced more by
Walt Rostow than any Marxist I've ever read.

>>Sometimes, in such cases, the term 'semi-feudal' is used descriptively to
allude to the fact that there is still a large peasantry and that social
relations in the countryside still have something of a pre-capitalist
aspect to them. In Europe itself we have seen examples of this, e.g. Spain
in the early twentieth century. Such countries were capitalist, but a
backward form of capitalism. The 'solution' to this is always an
authoritarian discipline with a strongly nationalist character.<<

It is a bad mistake to confuse Spain with Cuba. Spain was only backward in
comparison to Great Britain. But all of Latin America was backward in
comparison to Europe. 5 centuries of colonialism accounts for this.

>>In Spain the term 'iron surgeon' was used I think almost a hundred years
ago to refer to what it would take the country to catch up with the
developed world. It found its iron surgeon in Franco. It is a mistake to
describe a rightwing nationalist movement like this as simply reactionary
(see Proyect's recent post on this) - this would contradict the fact that
it sets its sights on capitalist modernisation as a path to national
salvation. This is not at all different from what the Chinese have
achieved, far more successfully than the case of the Soviet Union, and Cuba
too I would say, because the Chinese leadership has been much more clear
that this is what they were trying to do. So: feudalism no; distorted,
backward, peripheral capitalism yes.<<

China is desperately trying to rid itself of the unprofitable state
manufacturing sector with its "iron rice bowl". It wants to convert
completely to capitalism. The only thing that holds it back is working
class resentment over looming unemployment. These are the real class
questions in China that you obfuscate in a rather clumsy manner.


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---