FIGHT RACISM! FIGHT IMPERIALISM! OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991
The collapse of the socialist bloc and the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union has inevitably focussed attention on the future of socialism in Cuba. Capitalist propaganda portrays Fidel Castro as an isolated and lonely figure and the Cuban revolution facing its last days. But those rustling to write the epitaph for communism underestimate Fidel Castro and the Cuban people. ‘To those who think that there could be no future for [Cuba], we have to answer that the only thing that could never have a future would be a country without independence, without revolution and without socialism.’ (Granma Editorial 8 September 1991)
Fidel Castro was able to attend and address the 1st Ibero-American Summit in Guadalajara, Mexico, in July, against the expressed wishes of the United States, and positions advanced by Cuba, on the democratisation of the United Nations and the right of every nation to choose its political system and institutions, were in the final document of the Summit. Chile and Colombia took advantage of the Summit to establish diplomatic ties with Cuba. This shows the enhanced standing Cuba has among the Latin American countries.
In two recent speeches*, including that to the Ibero-American Summit, given before the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro confronts the triumphalism of US imperialism and the headlong retreat of a great proportion of the world’s left forces with a sustained and eloquent defence of socialism. He argues that the problems of economic development, poverty and inequality cannot be resolved by capitalism in a world which is divided between immensely rich capitalist countries and the majority of extremely poor countries, precisely as a consequence of capitalism, colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism. ‘In this world to think that neo-liberal formulas are going to promote the miracle of economic development . . . is an incredible delusion’ (B p12). DAVID REED reports.
A NEW WORLD ORDER WORSE THAN THE OLD?
A substantial restructuring of international relations is taking place as a result of the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The conflict between two antagonistic blocs is no longer the focus of those relations. While this has significantly reduced the danger of nuclear holocaust, and confrontation between the two major military powers, the new world order could well be worse than the old, especially for the peoples of the Third World.
While a new type of relationship is being established between the superpowers, acts of brutal intervention can take place in the Third World as the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War demonstrated. ‘An unscrupulous hegemonic perspective and practice prevails’ in US ruling circles, ‘which see themselves as the victors of the so-called Cold War’. The greatest threat to the principles of international law and, above all, to a permanent halt to interference in the internal affairs of other countries is the political and military hegemony of the United States. With the so-called ‘Soviet threat’ gone, the US ruling class, under the guise of strengthening US national security, believes it can face the challenge of regional conflicts, low-intensity wars, the drug trade and subversion, by any means it sees fit and according to its own interpretation in each case. ‘The most likely scenarios for all the above – but not the only ones – are in the Third World.’
‘In the end the new world order could be worse than the old order, a unipolar world in which the cessation of antagonism between blocs, exalted by some as the end of ideology and the triumph of universal values, is due above all to the extinction of the socialist community, while the imperialist system of economic and political relations continues, now without rival, subjugating and maintaining the principal contradiction with the Third World.’ (A p5)
THE ECONOMIC DECLINE OF US IMPERIALISM
While the United States is more powerful than ever in military terms and politically has enormous influence, economically it is weaker than ever and is facing serious problems. Castro tells us that when a US journalist interviewing him said that the USSR had been ruined by the arms race with the United States, he replied: ‘The USSR might be the first to be ruined, but you will be the second . . . Don’t sing victory songs’ (B p13).
After World War II, the United States was the centre of capitalism, the richest and most competitive of all countries. It enjoyed complete hegemony, and now it has lost this position. The powers defeated in World War II have emerged as poles for the concentration of economic power, defying US supremacy (A p5). The US cannot compete with japan nor a Europe dominated by Germany.
The following economic statistics illustrate the economic problems facing the United States. In the years after World War II the rate of return on US capital was as high as 24%. Now it is about a third of that rate, about 8%. Historically the United States has had a high savings rate. Today this has fallen to about 5 cents out of every dollar earned. This is to be compared with savings as high as 30 cents in some European countries.
The total debt in the United States – federal and private – is $10 trillion. The federal government accounts for about $3 trillion and the rest is owed by businesses and individuals. The country has a debt double the size of its GNP. As a result of the recession that began in the middle of 1990, it has been announced that the budget deficit for the fiscal year which begins in October will be $350bn – an amazing statistic even for as large an economy as the United States.
The United States not only has a trade deficit of $100bn but now has an overall foreign debt of more than $600bn. Only ten years ago it had a credit of some $140bn with the rest of the world. In having such a large budget and trade deficit, the United States does exactly what it prohibits other countries from doing.
The economic indebtedness of the United States will have enormous consequences for the rest of the world – especially the former socialist countries and the Third World, desperate for capital to develop their economies. ‘According to experts, the demand for money in the world is over $200bn more than what is available.’ There is not enough capital to satisfy the demands of Latin America, the Middle East, the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. ‘The United States has become an octopus, sucking up huge quantities of money, and they themselves need more than anyone else.’ (B p13)
The United States’ foreign trade and debt position is that of a country losing ground to its competitors in Europe and Japan. To reverse this position it will be necessary to reinforce its area of influence, its economic space, and to reaffirm its dominion (A p3). This is the context in which its recent initiatives for the Americas should be seen – in particular the proposal to create a free trade zone. Castro, in his speech to the 1st Ibero-American Summit, said that if Latin America is going to integrate into the economy of a financially ruined country it is going to get the worst end of the deal.
60% of Latin American exports to the United States are fuel and raw materials, while less than 30% are manufactured products. The situation has deteriorated over the last 20 years. In 1970 38.2% came into this category compared with 29% in 1988. The main cause of this drop was US protectionist policy, which tended to block the most finished products and favour raw materials. This protectionist policy, based on non-tariff barriers, would not be affected by this ‘free trade’ initiative, which is nothing more than an attempt to control Latin America’s trade, using the US’s technical and scientific superiority and competitive capacity. It will reinforce the neocolonial structure of the region’s foreign trade. (A p4)
Compared to its trade with the United States, trade among Latin American countries is insignificant, accounting for only 13.9% of total Latin American exports. During his speech Castro argued that Latin America had no alternative but to integrate economically if it was to develop in the face of the increasingly powerful and protectionist economic powers, the United States, the European Community and Japan, and that Cuba could be part of this process without renouncing socialism. (A pp4, 6; B p13)
CAPITALISM AND LATIN AMERICA
1991 is the tenth consecutive year of Latin America’s worst economic crisis in the current century. 1990 per capita GNP was equal to that of 1977. Latin America’s foreign debt is unpayable – a point made by Fidel Castro in 1985. Latin America, which owed $222.5bn in 1980, paid out in principal and interest $365.9bn in the last decade. But by 1990 the debt was $423bn. So the debt nearly doubled in spite of the enormous amount paid back. Inflation, which averaged 56.1% in 1982, in 1990 – after several years of neoliberal policies – reached the nearly incredible average of 1,500%.
There are 270 million poor people, 62% of the population, of whom 84 million are destitute. This poverty of the majority drastically contrasts with the opulence of small minorities. In some cases 5% of the population receives up to 50% of the income while 30 or 40% of the population receives 10%.
Between 20 and 30 million homeless children roam the streets of Latin America. 30 to 40% of the workforce is unemployed or underemployed, malnutrition affects 80 to 100 million people. Life expectancy is 68 years, seven years less than in the developed countries. The infant mortality rate is 55 per 1,000 live births. 21% of the population have no access to safe drinking water, and 41% lack adequate health facilities. Only 44 children out of 100 who enrol for elementary school across Latin America finish it. The critical situation of housing and its rapid deterioration over the past few years has led to the proliferation of shanty towns and slums throughout the continent. With the rapid growth of the urban population, housing covered only 24% of the needs between 1985 and 1989. It has been estimated that some $282bn would be needed to bring health, housing and education to adequate standards in Latin America (A pp2, 3).
All this poverty from which the Latin American countries suffer is the direct result of capitalism. Yet we are confronted with more and more theories that private enterprise creates wealth, and that social justice requires capitalism, private enterprise and the market economy. The reality is quite different, as a comparison with socialist Cuba so clearly demonstrates.
SOCIALISM AND CUBA
Throughout its existence socialist Cuba has had not only to confront the many obstacles facing any development process in a Third World country but has also had to face a rigid economic blockade of the country imposed by the United States since 1961 – depriving the country, on the basis of the most conservative calculations, of $15 billion of resources over the last 30 years. The construction of a more just and humane society in these circumstances is an historic feat of the Cuban people and Cuban socialism.
The catastrophic social conditions which exist throughout Latin America do not exist in Cuba. The infant mortality rate in Cuba at 10.7 per 1,000 live births is better than in many developed countries. Life expectancy is 76 years of age and rising. Illiteracy disappeared some time ago. Nearly 100% of the children who enter elementary school finish and more than 90% of those of the appropriate age are in secondary school. There are no shanty towns. Malnutrition is almost unknown in Cuba. Unemployment is practically non-existent. The whole population is protected by social security, has the right to education and to free health care, even if they need a heart transplant. There are no beggars in the street nor abandoned elderly people; and the generalised climate of violence which characterises the great majority of contemporary societies is not found in Cuba. That is Cuban socialism. (A pp4, 5; B p13)
Since the second half of 1989 Cuba has had to deal with the collapse of the socialist countries. Three quarters of Cuba’s trade had been with those countries under just and reasonable conditions. As a result, Cuba has been forced to introduce an emergency programme to survive, a special period, starting in the last quarter of 1990. Living standards have fallen and increasingly severe rationing of basic goods is becoming necessary. Cuba now faces very serious economic problems. The measures it is taking to cope, however, have nothing in common with the well-known adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund. They have been adopted according to the principles of adequate protection for all citizens. No one will be put out on the street, no one will be unemployed. ‘We distribute what we have and that is socialism, that is social justice . . . if we have a lot we can distribute a lot and if we have little, we distribute a little, but we’ll distribute what we have, we won’t abandon anyone’. (B p13)
Throughout its existence Cuba has demonstrated in practice the meaning of socialist internationalism. Cuban socialists have given their lives for the struggle for freedom and democracy in other parts of the world, especially in Latin America and Africa. Today, with US imperialism accelerating efforts to strangle Cuba, internationalism must focus on defending the revolution – it is the greatest service that not only Cuban socialists but socialists everywhere can offer humanity. ■
*Speech to 1st Ibero-American Summit Granma 4 August 1991 (A) and speech on 26 July 1991 Granma 11 August 1991 (B).
