Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:21 -0400
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Castro embraces the state-capitalist model (part one


Communist Void/Joseph Green:
>
>   Let's review what socialism is, so as to judge whether the 
>policies of the 70s were bringing it closer. Socialism entails the 
>abolition of the private ownership of all the means of production 
>and the direction of the economic system as a whole by the working 
>masses. Such control over the economy goes beyond each group of 
>workers running their own particular factories, or peasants their 
>individual or collective farms. It means that each factory and 
>farm is subject to the direction of the working masses as a whole. 

This is formal logic incarnate. A textbook definition of "socialism" is
established that allows for no contradiction. "Capitalism" appears in many
forms, from the radical democracy of the early months of the French
Revolution to the extreme reactionary rule of big business under fascism.
What unites all of these differing regimes is the basic mode of production,
which is private ownership of the means of production for profit.
"Socialism" represents, by the same token, abolition of private ownership
and the introduction of planning for the benefit of society as a whole.
Under socialism, there can be bureaucratic privilege and poor planning, but
it is socialism nonetheless. The use of the term "state capitalism" is
simply an unscientific way to stigmatize regimes that do not live up to
Joseph Green's textbook definition.

> Building socialism requires 
>working toward the elimination of a separate management stratum. 
>Society can only advance toward socialism if the motivations 
>necessary for disciplined production can move beyond relying on 
>direct financial reward for oneself or one's workplace. Only in 
>this way can the new society work toward eliminating all class 
>distinctions and inequalities.
>

"Building socialism" is deeply problematic in single countries. Marx and
Engels anticipated that socialist revolutions would sweep the
industrialized nations of Europe in the late 1800s and become as dominant
in the 20th century as capitalism was in the 19th. Instead, socialism
arrived in underdeveloped, primarily agricultural countries. The intense
pressure from imperialism, expressed through war and economic blockade, has
created all sorts of distortions, from the deepest manifestations in the
USSR during the 1930s to the slightest as on the small island of Cuba
today. All this is elementary to real Marxists. But "anti-revisionists"
like Joseph Green of Communist Void operate on the basis of the
anti-Marxist notion of "socialism in one country." Lenin said that unless
there were revolutions in Europe in the 1920s, the USSR was "doomed." The
notion that Cuba, devoid of a skilled work-force, heavy industry, advanced
telecommunications, large-scale automation, etc., could live up to the
expectations of Joseph Green's tiny  peripheral sect is highly unlikely.
What is also unlikely is the possiblity that Green could ever break through
and win the following of the American working class, as the Cuban CP did.
What would be more interesting is a critique of the last 25 years of his
current, the Communist Void.


>   A more detailed look at the measures that encompassed the 
>economy in the 70s reveals they encompassed many of the well-known 
>features of capitalism. These market reforms were based on the 
>plans formulated by the Soviet revisionist economist E.G. 
>Liberman, which had influence in the Soviet Union in the early 
>60s. 

Ah, yes, Libermanism. Cuba experimented with Libermanism as a way to
overcome inefficiencies. But Libermanism does not equal capitalism. I know
that this is very difficult for someone as dogmatic as Green to figure out,
but market mechanisms don't mean that much as long as there is no
capitalist class.

What is interesting is that the imperialist bourgeoisie has no use for the
term "state capitalism". You can pore through the pages of tomes by Henry
Kissinger, Dean Rusk, Richard Helms et al, and you will never hear a single
reference to "state capitalism." The bourgeoisie regards Cuba as socialist,
just as it regarded the former USSR--with all of its Libermanism--as
socialist. They are much shrewder than people like Joseph Green. They have
no use for categories such as "state capitalism" since they recognize that
unless there is a Cuban bourgeoisie, there is no capitalism to speak of.

They hated states like the former Soviet Union for the same reason that the
Wall St. Journal hates the American trade unions, no matter how
self-serving the bureaucracy that runs them and no matter how little
democracy there is in them. The hatred is a class hatred. Unions, in their
imperfect manner--to put it mildly--, defend the interests of working
people. It is better to have democratic unions, like the 1938 Teamster
Local in Minneapolis, than it is to have bureaucratic and corrupt unions,
like the Detroit Teamsters local of Jimmy Hoffa in 1948. The more
democratic a union there is and the less privileges the officials enjoy,
the more motivation workers have to defend their unions. But they are
organizations of the working class nonetheless.

Cuba, under the best of circumstances, could never have built "socialism"
in the true Marxian sense. Socialism is a world-wide system. The fate of
Cuba was intimately tied up with the fate of socialism world-wide. A
profound revolutionary upsurge that took place after WWII receded in the
1970s and the net result has been the collapse of the USSR and the pending
privatization of Chinese state industry. Despite the retreat, the Cuban
government has fought like a tiger to preserve socialized property
relations. That is why the imperialists are using biological warfare,
setting off bombs in restaurants and blocking shipments of medicines that
could save the life of sick children.

One of the reasons that groups like the Communist Void remain small is that
their ideas are counter-intuitive. Working people and students who have
grown up in a powerful and cruel country like the US have heard anti-Cuban
propaganda their entire lives. If somebody comes along and says that Cuba
has a form of capitalism, their inclination is to chuckle.

To the average person, these arguments are counter-intuitive. To people on
a Marxism list, they are beyond chuckling. They provoke belly laughs. Here
is Joseph Green, leader of a former pro-Enver Hoxha sect, who has not held
a job in 25 years according to cult escapee "neil", lecturing us about
workers in Cuba and how bad they have it.

50 years from now when scholars are studying the American left of the 60s
through the end of the century, there might be a footnote or two about
currents like the Communist Void which aspired to be the vanguard of the
American working class on the basis of a core of ideas that, to everybody
but them, are patently absurd. People like Green are here to pick up a
stray recruit, but I suspect that he is looking in the wrong neck of the
woods. People on Marxism-International are among the most politically
sophisticated Marxists in the world. So let Green beat his head against the
wall. Aspirins are cheap.

Louis Proyect







     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---