Dalam ucapan 1962 bertajuk "Kewajipan Revolusioner." Fidel Castro berkata,

The summary of the nightmare which torments America from one end to the other is that on this continent … about four persons per minute die of hunger, of curable illness, or premature old age. Fifty-five hundred per day, two million per year, ten million each five years. These deaths could easily be avoided, but nevertheless they take place. Two-thirds of the Latin American population lives briefly and lives under constant threat of death. A holocaust of lives, which in 15 years has caused twice the number of deaths as World War I. Meanwhile, from Latin America a continuous torrent of money flows to the United States: some $4,000 a minute, $5 million a day, $2 billion a year, $10 billion every five years. For each thousand dollars that leaves us there remains one corpse. A thousand dollars per corpse: That is the price of what is called imperialism. A thousand dollars per death … four deaths every minute.

In the nearly three decades since Castro’s assessment, for all of Latin America except Cuba, the above statistics have improved little, or worsened. In the 1980s, income in Latin America, excluding Cuba, declined by 8 percent, according to the Inter-American Development Bank. Castro’s injunction in the same speech is therefore as apropos today as then:

The duty of every revolutionary is to make the revolution. It is known that the revolution will triumph in America and throughout the world, but it is not for revolutionaries to sit in the doorways of their houses waiting for the corpse of imperialism to pass by. The role of Job doesn’t suit a revolutionary. Each year that the liberation of America is speeded up will mean the lives of millions of children saved, millions of intelligences saved for culture, an infinite quantity of pain spared the people.

Sedikit yang berubah mengenai siapa dan apakah musuh prinsip atau besarnya jenayah yang memerlukan pembetulan. Oleh itu, sedikit yang telah berubah mengenai keperluan mendesak untuk mengatasi penguasaan imperial dan neo-kolonial.

But what about "liberation?" Have the positive goals a revolution should strive for changed? What does Cuba‘s experience teach us in these respects?

Despite decades of CIA terror and economic boycott, Cuba greatly exceeds its Latin American neighbors in intellectual, cultural, health, educational, and political accomplishments. But where is Cuba headed now that Soviet-bloc support is in doubt? What will happen to their polity and economy now that the Leninist political model and central-planning economic model are being abandoned elsewhere?

No matter how you look at it, one-person-rule through a bureaucratic hierarchical party is dictatorship, even when, as in Cuba, the leader is benevolent. Castro is the hub; the Cuban Communist Party radiates the spokes. Parallel grassroots institutions including poder popular represent a participatory trend that has as yet failed to transcend Party manipulation.

Untuk merasmikan tahun 1970-an, Castro mengisytiharkan:

Formula proses revolusioner tidak boleh menjadi formula pentadbiran…. Menghantar seorang lelaki turun dari atas untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang melibatkan 15 atau 20 ribu orang bukanlah perkara yang sama dengan masalah 15 atau 20 ribu orang ini—masalah yang berkaitan dengan komuniti mereka—yang diselesaikan berdasarkan keputusan pihak orang, masyarakat, yang dekat dengan punca masalah…. Kita mesti menghapuskan semua kaedah pentadbiran dan menggunakan kaedah massa di mana-mana.

Cuba has the Leninist, hierarchical Party and the popular democratic poder popular. But, Castro’s words notwithstanding, the former has consistently dominated the latter. Oversimplifying a complex and variegated political history, it follows that three main impediments have obstructed Castro’s hope to substitute political participation for political administration:

(1) Parti Komunis Cuba memonopoli semua cara yang sah untuk menggunakan kuasa politik dan dengan itu memastikan bahawa hanya ada satu garis politik Cuba, iaitu Parti dan kepimpinannya. Masalah pertama ialah Leninisme politik.

(2) Kehadiran Fidel Castro di mana-mana memberi sedikit ruang untuk mana-mana kenderaan popular untuk mencapai kuasa akar umbi terdesentralisasi yang sebenar. Masalah kedua ialah Fidelismo.

(3) The willingness of the U.S. to manipulate political differences to destroy Third World revolutions (as amply demonstrated by the recent Nicaraguan elections) justifies regimentation. The third problem facing Cuba is the not-so-benevolent Uncle Sam.

As Cuba loses its fealty to the East, as Castro faces the problem of succession, and as the corruption of the political bureaucracy increasingly alienates the Cuban populace, two possible political paths are emerging. Cuba can return to its early aspirations and exceed glasnost by moving from Leninism and dictatorship to participatory democracy premised on mass participation, or, instead, Cuba can defend authoritarianism and preserve elite privileges under the guise of "Defending the Revolution."

Untuk semua pencapaiannya, ekonomi Cuba jauh dari "dibebaskan." Perancang, birokrat negeri, pengurus tempatan dan teknokrat memonopoli keputusan semasa pekerja melaksanakan perintah. Dalam ekonomi yang terhasil, kelas penyelaras yang memerintah merancang usaha pekerja dan memperuntukkan gaji, faedah dan status yang dinaikkan.

Cuba‘s coordinator economy has given the Cuban people pride in national accomplishments, and major material gains in health care, housing, literacy, security, and overall standards of living. For these reasons the Cuban revolution is deservedly popular. But however admirable these achievements are when compared to conditions in Guatemala, El Salvador, or even Watts or the South Bronx, this does not justify applying the label "liberated" or "socialist." For that, there would have to be no ruling class, and workers would have to collectively administer their own efforts, with solidarity and equity.

Walau bagaimanapun, seperti politik, sejarah ekonomi Cuba tidak mengikuti trajektori yang mudah. Model penyelaras telah dominan, tetapi sentiasa ada semangat alternatif yang ditunjukkan, kadang-kadang dalam harapan, kadang-kadang dalam eksperimen sebenar, tetapi malangnya tidak pernah membawa kepada hubungan ekonomi yang bebas.

Pada tahun 1962 dan 1963, kagum dengan apa yang mereka lihat ketika melawat Kesatuan Soviet, dan tidak melihat pilihan lain, Cuba memasang bentuk ekonomi yang meniru model tradisional Soviet. Menjelang tahun 1964, kekecewaan berlaku dan perdebatan hebat berlaku. Dalam surat yang ditulis dari Afrika pada tahun 1965, meringkaskan semangat cadangan yang diperjuangkannya dalam perdebatan itu, Che Guevara menulis:

Masyarakat baru dalam proses pembentukan perlu bersaing dengan sangat keras dengan masa lalu. Ini menjadikan dirinya dirasai bukan sahaja dalam kesedaran individu, ditimbang oleh sisa-sisa pendidikan dan didikan yang berorientasikan secara sistematik ke arah pengasingan individu, tetapi juga oleh sifat tempoh peralihan ini, dengan kegigihan hubungan komoditi. Komoditi adalah sel ekonomi masyarakat kapitalis: selagi ia wujud kesannya akan membuatkan diri mereka dirasai dalam organisasi pengeluaran dan oleh itu dalam kesedaran.

Dalam perbahasan itu, Che meremehkan penggunaan "keuntungan," "kepentingan material," dan "mentaliti komoditi," sebaliknya berhujah untuk menekankan moral, kolektiviti, perpaduan, dan kriteria nilai kegunaan dalam memenuhi keperluan manusia. Beliau bagaimanapun tidak memperjuangkan malah tidak membangkitkan isu kawalan langsung oleh pekerja ke atas tempat kerja mereka sendiri atau ke atas pembuatan keputusan ekonomi secara amnya.

Castro menggunakan pendirian yang sama berperikemanusiaan tetapi tidak lengkap dengan mengatakan bahawa:

Kita tidak akan sekali-kali mewujudkan kesedaran sosialis … dengan `tanda dolar' dalam fikiran dan hati lelaki dan wanita kita … mereka yang ingin menyelesaikan masalah dengan merayu kepada mementingkan diri sendiri, dengan merayu kepada usaha individualistik, melupakan masyarakat, bertindak dalam cara reaksioner, berkonspirasi, walaupun diilhamkan oleh niat terbaik di dunia, menentang kemungkinan mewujudkan semangat sosialis yang benar-benar.

Castro mengakui bahawa hasratnya untuk menyamakan pendapatan dan melepaskan persaingan serta insentif individu tidak dapat difahami oleh sesetengah pihak. Dia tahu bahawa untuk "belajar," ahli ekonomi "berpengalaman" "ini nampaknya bertentangan dengan undang-undang ekonomi."

Bagi ahli ekonomi ini, pernyataan jenis ini kedengaran seperti bidaah, dan mereka mengatakan bahawa revolusi menuju ke arah kekalahan. Tetapi kebetulan dalam bidang ini terdapat dua cawangan khas. Salah satunya ialah cabang ahli ekonomi `tulen'. Tetapi ada sains lain, sains yang lebih mendalam yang benar-benar sains revolusioner. Ia adalah ilmu … keyakinan terhadap manusia. Jika kita bersetuju bahawa orang tidak boleh diperbaiki, bahawa orang tidak berupaya untuk belajar; jika kita bersetuju bahawa orang tidak mampu mengembangkan hati nurani mereka—maka kita perlu mengatakan bahawa ahli ekonomi yang `berotak' betul, bahawa Revolusi akan menuju ke arah kekalahan dan bahawa ia akan melawan undang-undang ekonomi…

Over the years the economic debate in Cuba has vacillated between two poles: competition versus solidarity, profit-maximizing versus meeting human needs, markets versus central planning, and individual incentives and inequality versus collective incentives and equality, with many swings back and forth over the years. Consider the following comments from Castro when the left pole was in ascendancy:

Seorang pemodal, ahli ekonomi tulen, ahli metafizik revolusi akan berkata, `Berhati-hati, sewa tidak boleh diturunkan satu sen. Fikirkan dari sudut kewangan, dari sudut ekonomi, fikirkan peso yang terlibat!' Orang seperti itu mempunyai `tanda dolar' di kepala mereka dan mereka mahu orang ramai, juga, mempunyai `tanda dolar' dalam hati dan kepala mereka! Orang seperti itu tidak akan membuat walaupun satu undang-undang revolusioner. Atas nama prinsip itu mereka akan terus mengenakan faedah kepada petani atas pinjaman; mereka akan mengenakan bayaran untuk rawatan perubatan dan hospital; mereka akan mengenakan yuran sekolah; mereka akan mengenakan bayaran untuk sekolah berasrama penuh yang benar-benar percuma, semuanya atas nama pendekatan metafizik kepada kehidupan. Mereka tidak akan pernah ada keghairahan rakyat, keghairahan rakyat jelata yang menjadi faktor utama, faktor asas, untuk rakyat maju, untuk membina rakyat, untuk rakyat boleh membangun. Dan keghairahan di pihak rakyat, bahawa sokongan untuk revolusi adalah sesuatu yang boleh diukur dari segi yang tidak dapat dibandingkan dengan penambahan dan pengurangan ahli metafizik.

The problem has been that the left pole, which has argued for egalitarianism, solidarity, meeting needs, and collective incentives, has also argued for extreme central planning rather than decentralized, participatory planning with direct workplace democracy. And the difficulty here is not only that something valuable wasn’t included on the left side of the debate, but that the positive goals the left championed—solidarity, equity, collectivity—were subverted by coordinator decision-making and central planning. When the left pole gained ascendancy the continuing lack of real participation and power on the part of workers meant that their enthusiasm and talent were not unleashed in the hoped for manner. Thus, after a few years of left influence over economic policy, the economy would eventually falter, and the turn back to the right—always urged by the Soviet advisers empowered by virtue of Cuba‘s dependence on Russian aid—would be legitimated.

In the face of perestroika, Cuba will not happily jump on the free-market bandwagon. They will prefer any alternative to resurgent commodity economics and a sellout to the West. But, what can they do instead?

One depressing and the most likely possibility is that they will stay the current course, defending coordinatorism while trying to rectify its worst abuses, all in the name of "defending the revolution." This option has three major problems. First, in the long run, it would not permit workers and consumers to collectively manage their own affairs. It would instead perpetuate coordinator rule no matter how successful the battle to limit coordinators’ appropriation of material privileges. Second, in the short and medium term it would do little to elicit increased productivity and allegiance from the Cuban populace in an effort to ward off the hardships that further economic isolation will impose. And third, again in the short and medium term, it would do little to gain grassroots international support, which is the only possibility to mitigate reductions in Soviet bloc aid. The virtue, from the perspective of Cuba‘s elites, is that the approach would continue to defend elite privileges and would not risk introducing short-run turmoil.

The other option is for Cuba to take the current opportunity to return to the ideals of Che Guevara and an earlier Fidel Castro, coupled with new awareness of the importance of economic participation. This would mean installing a new economic system emphasizing workplace democracy, consumer councils, an end to the division between mental and manual labor, and a decentralized planning procedure in which consumer and worker councils participate directly in formulating, revising, and deciding their own activities. The problem with this option is that it risks introducing disruption and would further alienate both the Eastern and Western blocs, and, from the perspective of Cuban elites, it would certainly challenge, and eventually eliminate their privileges. On the other hand, besides being the only road to real socialism, the left approach has the virtue of elevating Cuba back into the role of the leading experiment in liberation, thereby eliciting greater allegiance, energy, and spirit at home, and substantial internationalist and leftist grassroots support throughout the world.

Selalunya pergerakan dan negara menghadapi pilihan kritikal dengan kesan bersejarah dunia. Apabila Solidariti mula berjaya di Poland, ia mempunyai pilihan untuk mengekalkan komposisi kelas pekerjanya dan penekanannya untuk meningkatkan pekerja kepada kuasa membuat keputusan melalui institusi ekonomi baharu, atau membuang semua itu demi meningkatkan golongan intelektual dan menerima pakai pasaran, persaingan. , dan mencari keuntungan walaupun mereka tidak mencukupi. Setakat ini, pilihan yang membebaskan adalah berundur.

When Jesse Jackson galvanized new energies across the United States, he and the Rainbow Coalition had the opportunity to develop lasting grassroots organizations and democratic movements, or to subordinate everything to narrow electoral priorities. So far, the liberating choice is in retreat.

Now Cuba can either adopt a siege mentality and defend bureaucracy, dictatorship, central planning, and workplace hierarchy, all originally copied from allies now abandoning them, or can develop participatory democracy and truly socialist economics consistent with revolutionary Cuba‘s past aspirations. With their Eastern bloc bridges largely burnt, we can only hope that Cuba will once again opt for "a revolution within the revolution."

---