Print

Print


I refuse to allow myself to get caught up in a "dialogue of the deaf," so this will be my penultimate word on this subject. I don't see any use in discussing politics with anyone whose ideological blinders prevents them from seeing the difference between Stalinist repression in China and bogus charges of human rights violations in Cuba. Those who swallow the latter are simply unaware of the degree to which they have been flim-flammed by corporate media spin.

And this is my LAST word: "Cuba has a state capitalist system in place" is not a fact, essential or otherwise; it is an ideological construct. 


On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:15 AM, David Westman wrote:

For once, MB raises his points in a reasonable fashion.  It is important to distinguish bogus, revisionist "socialism" from the real thing today.  Stalinist "socialism" is bogus socialism, because Stalin hijacked the Russian revolutionary process in the 1920's, consolidated the restoration of capitalism with revisionist state capitalism in the 1930's and used the massive show-trials and purges of that decade to eliminate any "old Bolsheviks" who might challenge this direction.  China and Cuba both followed the Stalinist model of "existing socialism" during the initial stages after the respective revolutions in those countries.   China went further towards restoring capitalism under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, and today it is clearly a capitalist country using a socialist banner to deceive and confuse people.   Cuba also has a state capitalist system in place, and that is the essential fact to get straight when dealing with issues such as the repression of dissent on the island.  Yes, it has made great progress in social programs for the people, and it has withstood decades of US pressure and blockade, not because it is socialist, but because it dared to challenge the US domination of the hemisphere.  All progressive people should oppose the US domination of the hemisphere and oppose US attacks and the blockade of Cuba, regardless of the existence of revisionist state capitalism in Cuba.    It is clear that US domination is showing significant cracks these days, with the election of leftist governments in Central America (El Salvador and Nicaragua) and South America (Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela - on which more below).   And the OAS has just voted to readmit Cuba as a member in spite of US opposition.   These events all indicate that US political power in the hemisphere is experiencing significant challenges today.

In the case of Chavez in Venezuela, it is clear that he is leading the construction of a state capitalist economy, not a socialist one, regardless of the signboard of "Bolivarian socialism" that he uses to conceal his program.   All the moves he has taken to consolidate state control of industrial institutions are consistent with that objective.  He has also been very clear to suppress any independent activity by the workers when it comes to union activity and strikes which might challenge his control.  Yes it is true that the US government hates Chavez because he challenges US hegemony, and the CIA no doubt would love to assassinate or eliminate him.  These moves by US government agencies must be clearly opposed by progressive people, because they reveal the true agenda of US imperialism.   And Chavez's moves to re-direct scientific research are also consistent with a state-capitalist agenda.   His challenges to US hegemony in the hemisphere are limited by the necessity of retaining a market for Venezuelan petroleum products in the USA through the CITGO network, which is mostly owned by PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil monopoly.  So he must work to protect his market share here as well.  These facets of Venezuelan policy deserve further study, and I hope others can contribute to this work as well.

David Westman

Michael Balter wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Just one afterthought concerning this exchange with Cliff. I find it deeply disappointing that there are still some on the left who apparently think that socialism is not possible without suppressing freedom of expression, an attitude that indicates Stalinism is not yet entirely dead and buried by those who would claim the progressive mantle. Most people around the world do not want to trade in their human rights for economic security and progress, they want both, and those of us on the left should not be telling them that there is a conflict between these aspirations. If we do, explicitly or implicitly--and that is what we do when we respond to criticisms of the Cuban government by knee-jerk recitations of its accomplishments--we set back the socialist movement immeasurably. I notice that few on the left get upset anymore when the government of China is criticized, even though it is run by an organization that calls itself a Communist Party, because leftists assume that China is a capitalist country. But if China was still considered Communist or socialist, would we be defending the outrageous violations of human rights that take place there daily on the grounds that they are necessary? I doubt it somehow. Let's not do the same thing with Cuba.

MB

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
While this is very interesting and I wish to congratulate Cliff for the Cuban edition of his book, he does not actually deal with the issues that he calls me wrongheaded for raising. Why has the Cuban revolution not been able to produce younger leaders from among the nation's millions of people such that when Fidel Castro can no longer lead the only choice for his replacement is his own brother, someone almost as old as he? That some leftists fail to see the problem with this, and what it means for Cuban democracy, indicates a blindness that seems very hard to overcome. The answer to criticisms of the Cuban leadership is always to point to the progress the country has made. Fair enough, it has made great progress, and Cuba demonstrates some of the things that a socialist economic system is capable of. Think how much more it might accomplish if leftists both within and without Cuba did not constantly make excuses for the suppression of freedom of expression, discussion, debate, etc. As things stand now, a loosening of the embargo is more likely to lead to more capitalism on the island as Cubans, fed up with cultural deprivation and poverty, look to the US as a cultural and economic model despite the current economic crisis. Indeed, I predict that is exactly what will happen once the embargo no longer serves as an excuse for keeping the Cubans down.

MB


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Cliff Conner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Michael Balter’s comment about “the Castro brothers’ last excuse to hold monopoly power” exemplifies a wrongheadedness with regard to the Cuban Revolution that continues to sadden me. If “progressives” can’t recognize progress in human affairs, what hope is there for advancing the public discourse in a genuinely progressive direction?

I will take this opportunity to announce that a Cuban edition of my book A People’s History of Science is scheduled to be introduced at next February’s Havana International Book Fair. With that as a lead-in, permit me to comment on how I believe the Cuban Revolution has served to advance the cause of “people’s science.”

The Cuban Revolution, like its predecessors in Russia and China, parlayed the advantages of centralized economic planning into unparalleled scientific and technological advances. The USSR and China, two of the world’s largest countries, had sought to build powerful, autonomous economies that could go head-to-head in competition with the world’s leading capitalist nations.

But Cuba, a small island with a population of only about ten million people, wisely chose not to channel its scientific endeavors into a quixotic effort to compete directly with the United States in the field of military technology. Instead, Cuba relied on diplomatic and political means for its national security—that is, on its alliance with the Soviet Union and on the moral authority its revolution had gained throughout Latin America and the rest of the world. That allowed its science establishment to direct its attention in other, less military-oriented, directions.

The USSR and China had aimed their science programs toward facilitating the growth of basic heavy industry. The Cubans, by contrast, oriented their science program toward the solution of social problems. Universal healthcare was assigned high priority, giving impetus to the development of the medical sciences. A harsh economic embargo imposed by the United States compelled the Cubans to find ways to produce their own medicines. They met the challenge and the upshot was that Cuba, despite its “developing world” economic status, now stands at the forefront of international biochemical and pharmacological research.

In the 1980s a worldwide “biotechnological revolution” occurred, and Cuban research institutions took a leading role in it. Among the most noteworthy products of Cuban bioscience are vaccines for treating meningitis and hepatitis B, the popular cholesterol-reducer PPG (which is derived from sugarcane), monoclonal antibodies used to combat the rejection of transplanted organs, recombinant interferon products for use against viral infections, epidermal growth factor to promote tissue healing in burn victims, and recombinant streptokinase for treating heart attacks.

The Cuban biotech institutes focus their attention on deadly diseases that Big Pharma tends to ignore because they mainly afflict poor people in the developing world. An important part of their mission is the creation of low-cost alternative drugs. In 2003 Cuban researchers announced the creation of the world’s first human vaccine containing a synthetic antigen. It was a vaccine for treating Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b), a bacterial disease that causes meningitis and pneumonia in young children and kills more than 500,000 throughout the world every year. An effective vaccine against Hib already existed and had proven successful in industrialized nations, but its high cost sharply limited its availability in the less affluent parts of the world. The synthetic vaccine is significantly cheaper.

The Cuban example offers a particularly clear case study of how a revolution can have a liberating effect on the development of science. The Cuban revolution removed the greatest of all obstacles to scientific advance by freeing the island from economic subordination to the industrialized world. The wealthier countries’ ability to manufacture products at relatively low cost allows them to flood the markets of the nonindustrialized countries with cheaply produced machine-made goods, effectively preventing the latter from industrializing. The only way out of this dilemma for the poorer countries is to remove themselves from the worldwide economic system based on market exchange, where the rules are entirely stacked against them. The history of the twentieth century, however, suggests that any countries wanting to opt out of the system have had to fight their way out. The Cuban revolution was therefore a necessary precondition of the creation and flowering of Cuban science and its biotechnology industry.

The scientific achievements of the Cuban revolution testify that important, high-level scientific work can be performed without being driven by the profit motive. They also show that centralized planning does not necessarily have to follow the ultrabureaucratized model offered by the Soviet Union and China, wherein science primarily serves the interests of strengthening the state and only secondarily concerns itself with the needs of the people. Cuba’s accomplishments are all the more impressive for having been the product of a country with a relatively small economic base, and with the additional handicap of an economic embargo imposed by a powerful and hostile neighboring country.

The Cuban revolution has come closest to realizing the noble goal of a fully human-oriented science. Although Cuba’s small size limits its usefulness as a basis for universal conclusions, its accomplishments in the medical sciences certainly provide reason to believe that science on a world scale could be redirected from its present course as a facilitator of blind economic growth (which primarily serves the interests of small ruling groups that control their countries’ economies) and instead be devoted to improving the wellbeing of entire populations.





--
******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
Boston University

Email:           [log in to unmask]

Website:       michaelbalter.com
Balter's Blog: michael-balter.blogspot.com
******************************************



--
******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
Boston University

Email:           [log in to unmask]

Website:       michaelbalter.com
Balter's Blog: michael-balter.blogspot.com
******************************************