Kommunisten@riseup.net!: Cuba’s new market reforms

 

Cuba’s new market reforms

| English

U.S. imperialism is knocking on the door of the Cuban people. CBS News reported as early as late September that Trump is planning an invasion of Cuba to take place within 90 to 120 days. As part of an escalation of the trade embargo, Cuba has been subjected to additional U.S. sanctions this year, creating a humanitarian crisis on the island. Cuba relies on imports for many basic necessities—for example, a full 80% of the country’s food is imported. In addition to food, the embargo also covers drinking water, healthcare equipment, medicine, contraceptives, and more. Furthermore, the year began with an energy blockade described even by the UN—imperialism’s own “peacekeepers”—as an act of war.

The Yanks have said they don’t intend to stop there. They have stated loud and clear on numerous occasions that they will continue to increase pressure on the regime until it capitulates. But what does this mean? What changes do the Yanks want to see?

To answer that question, we need to have a brief look at Cuba’s modern history.

THE INTERRUPTED REVOLUTION: CUBA’S MODERN HISTORY

To make a long story short, let’s try to summarize Cuba’s modern history. Cuba began the twentieth century by freeing itself, two years earlier in 1898, from the colonial rule of the Spanish Crown. During the final year of the conflict, the Cuban freedom fighters received significant support from the United States, whose capitalism had by then evolved into monopoly capitalism. American capitalists were able to impose a semi-colonial relationship on Cuba by financing (and controlling) a handful of landowners. In addition, the Yanks were able to invest a small amount of capital in the country to establish their financial control, which created a clique of bourgeois on the island that was directly dependent on Yankee capital. This clique evolved into the compradors—the local administrators of U.S. imperialism.

Over the course of the 20th century, the capital, Havana, developed into a harem for Yankees who wanted to live a decadent, hedonistic life. In Havana, you would find a city built for tourists, rife with drugs, poverty, and prostitution. Surrounding the city was a relatively large semi-proletariat and urban petty bourgeoisie; in the countryside, the majority were peasants.

During the 1930s, the working class and the peasants launched a major uprising across the country. They went on strike and demonstrated. Weapons were even raised against the island’s rulers. Within the country’s most important industry—the sugar mills—a Soviet movement emerged, featuring revolutionary workers’ councils. It all culminated in the fall of the U.S.-led comprador government. But not long after that, the army staged a coup and established a classic Latin American-style military dictatorship led by Fulgencio Batista. It was all orchestrated from Washington.

During the 1950s, the petty bourgeoisie had developed into one of the most numerous classes in the country, as it was their organizations that were the most militant. Castro’s July 26 Movement emerged precisely from the petty bourgeoisie. Its 1956 program contained classic bourgeois demands and phrases. It was “guided by the ideals of democracy, nationalism, and social justice,” a “Jeffersonian democracy” (named after U.S. President Jefferson, 1801–1809), and they declared that “democracy cannot mean a government of one race, class, or religion; rather, it must be a government for the entire people.” In other words: the Castro-led movement did not fight for socialism or a new democracy, but to take over the U.S.-controlled economy and make it Cuban; it fought for a democracy that claimed to be above the classes.

With this program, Castro and a small group took up arms against Batista’s government in the Sierra Maestra mountains, while other young intellectuals and professionals organized resistance in the cities. This war won the support of nearly all other classes except for the small handful of people directly linked to the landowners and the United States. In the struggle, the decisive force was the small farmers, who waged an armed struggle against the landowners and the army. Batista’s army, which consisted largely of farmers, soon began to fall apart. Batista’s government disintegrated after two years of fighting in which only a few hundred armed rebels were involved.

During the final months of the fighting, even the U.S. government had withdrawn some of its support for the Batista regime, believing it was more likely that the July 26 Movement would agree to a settlement than that the Batista regime could survive. Shortly after taking power in 1959, Castro traveled to the U.S. on a “goodwill tour” and declared in New York: “I have clearly and definitively stated that we are not communists… The doors are open to private investment that contributes to Cuba’s development.” He even advocated for a massive U.S. aid program for Latin America, “to avoid the danger of communism.” His openly anti-communist rhetoric, intended to appease the Yanks, stemmed from the same reason that later forced him to change his tune and adopt “communist” rhetoric to appease the Soviet Union: he was the embodiment of opportunism.

Creating a new Cuba required expropriating the sugar plantations, which ran counter to the Yanks’ capitalist interests. These were the pillars of the economic and political system that had originally sparked the uprising. Challenging them meant challenging the entire colonial system that prevailed on the island, and there was no turning back, as the people would rightly view it as a capitulation. So it was quite convenient that a certain Nikita Khrushchev, who had recently led a capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, came knocking on the door.

CUBA IS TRANSFORMED INTO A SEMI-COLONY OF THE SOVIET UNION

Following the capitalist restoration, the Soviet Union had begun to be governed by the laws of imperialism—that is, it was driven by the need to monopolize sources of raw materials, export capital to extract superprofits, and compete with imperialist rivals for world domination. They realized that by bringing Cuba into their imperialist sphere of influence, they would be able to extract great wealth from the country. Cuba thus became a political and military tool in the revisionist Soviet Union’s struggle against its American rivals.

Like any entrepreneur, the Soviets granted the first loans to Cuba at a low cost. In the early years of “aid,” loans were provided interest-free, and later they began charging 2.5% interest. Their actual profit, however, was much higher than that. Under the original agreement, 80% of the Soviet Union’s credit and funds were to be used to purchase Soviet products at heavily inflated prices. Just as with interest rates, once Cuba’s dependence had been firmly established, the Soviets raised the stakes and demanded that all credit be spent on Soviet products. According to one author with access to Cuban statistics, the Soviet Union charged 11% to 53% more for machinery than the price of comparable machinery in the West. And to make this robbery even more outrageous, they sold much of this sugar at an even higher price to Eastern Europe, even though the Soviets initially paid Cuba more for its sugar than the world market price at the time (which, of course, they soon stopped doing).

This was standard Soviet practice throughout the world. It was through unequal trade that the Soviet Union realized the surplus value generated by capital exports. Essentially, it was little more than an accounting arrangement regarding whether the profit returned to the Soviet Union in the form of interest or in the form of superprofits from sales, when those sales were tied to trade agreements and capital exports.

It was the sugar plantations that the Cuban economy was condemned to produce and export throughout the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. During the Spanish colonial era, it was administered by Spanish officials on the island; during the American era, by the landowners and compradors in the city; and later, by government officials in Havana during the Soviet era. During the Batista era, farmers were forbidden from cultivating unused land, as they were instead required to work on the sugar plantations. The same occurred under Castro. The people were herded into working on the sugar plantations; they were forced to work longer hours and, over time, were paid less.

Castro claimed that the country did not need to develop any other industry but, as mentioned, condemned the people to a life of perpetual plantation labor. Instead, he and his associates asserted that Soviet aid and sugar purchases enabled them to buy everything they needed to “build socialism and communism simultaneously in Cuba.” The Soviet Union succeeded in buying itself a new colony.

Castro had no interest in developing the country or building socialism. Instead, he chose to ensure that, just as the island had been ruled under the rule of landowners and compradors under the control of U.S. imperialism, the sugar industry would continue to dominate economic life on the island.

CUBA IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF IMPERIALISM

Castro claimed, in an attempt to mislead the masses, that in order to achieve communism, Cuba first needed to develop the productive forces to produce a surplus. Therefore, he argued that the country needed to plan to maximize its profits by centering the economy on sugar plantations, and use the profits from this industry to develop the sugar industry and import food, cars, etc. It was precisely this line of reasoning that Castro used when workers’ wages were cut and they were forced to work longer hours.

This economic system described by Castro is based on the same principles that govern all capitalist countries, particularly in the form of state capitalism: that prices should be set based on production costs; that the factories and industries yielding the highest return on investment should be the areas where expansion is greatest; that the managers of these units should be paid based on their social status as well as the companies’ profitability; that workers should be paid based on the profitability of the companies they work for, and lose their jobs if production would be cheaper without them; and furthermore, that workers should be paid strictly according to their productivity, measured by piece-rate wages or based on whether they meet the production quota set for their jobs—in other words, whether they meet the standard.

This is truly capitalism in all its glory. Nowhere is this evident in its ugliest form more clearly than when Castro said in the 1970s that he regretted the terrible housing shortage in Cuba, but that “the revolution has not been able to do much” about it—while later revealing that the government was building 14 new tourist hotels and expanding others.

AFTER THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION

The Cuban state remained standing when the Soviet Union collapsed. During the 1990s, the country faced a severe crisis as its economy had become dependent on trade with the Soviet Union. Since then, the country has had to sell its goods on the international market. To illustrate this shift in the Cuban economy, we can look at the share of exports in GDP. Until 1990, exports accounted for 30% of GDP. During the remainder of the 1990s, this figure fell to between 10% and 15%, before fluctuating between 15% and 25% during the 2000s and 2010s. Since then, another shift has taken place: the country has opened up to more exports, and in 2022, trade accounted for 40% of the country’s total GDP. Today, Spain and China are the largest importers of Cuban goods.

Now that the Americans want to reclaim their former sugar colony, they have tightened their trade embargo. The U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, which has been in effect since 1962, prohibits most commercial and financial transactions between the two countries, with only limited exceptions for food and medicine. The embargo is enforced through various laws and regulations that make it difficult for Cuba to engage in international trade and gain access to financial markets. It also penalizes companies from other countries, which face fines or other restrictions when doing business in the U.S. The U.S. has tightened this embargo to counter Cuba’s efforts to expand its exports. Both Trump and Biden have imposed additional sanctions on Cuba since 2017—in 2017, 2021, and 2026.

SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION

As mentioned, a bureaucratic faction within the bourgeoisie has ruled Cuba since the 1959 revolution. By seizing control of the state apparatus, this class has been able to reshape the country to serve the interests of the bureaucrats and, by extension, imperialism. They have deepened the presence of semifeudalism on the island and transformed the country into a sugar colony, which has weakened the tendency toward capital accumulation within the country and thereby preserved the semi-feudal base throughout the country. Today, however, we see signs that the door is opening to a shift within the ruling class.

CUBA’S NEW REFORM PACKAGE

On June 18, 2026, Cuba’s National Assembly unanimously passed one of the most comprehensive market-oriented reform packages since the revolution. Most of the new reforms have not yet become law, but the trend is unmistakable: Cuba is opening up to the outside world in a way that is transforming the country from one with strong bureaucratic control over the economy to one that is opening up to more direct foreign intervention. Political power is shifting from the bureaucratic faction within the bourgeoisie to the more comprador elements. The result of the reforms, if they are fully adopted, is that both Cuban exiles and other foreigners will be able to do business in Cuba—provided the bureaucrats there are on board. In other words, once the “reforms” become law, Cuba will not be so different from El Salvador, Panama, Ecuador, and similar countries where the comprador factions rule the country.

It is not clear exactly which political factors have prompted the latest package of reforms. But it is impossible to analyze the situation without considering developments in the wider world. As the U.S. exerts ever-greater pressure on the rulers in Havana—who are holding their own people hostage—by choking off imports of essential goods, parts of the bureaucratic faction are choosing to switch sides to save their own skins and prevent the conflict from escalating into a de facto invasion. It is not farfetched to assume that internal opportunistic forces have joined forces with the U.S. Cuban exiles and their favorite senator, Marco Rubio. Now he finally has a chance for revenge; Marco is blocking oil and other essential supplies—such as medicines and baby food—from entering the country and boasts that he is the nation’s liberator. He is making all sorts of demands and urging the population to revolt, just as Trump is doing in Iran. Like Trump, he isn’t getting much of a response either.

Even the Los Angeles (LA) Times, on June 19, cited statements from both Trump and Rubio in which they both openly acknowledge that they want to impose U.S. imperialist control on Cuba. As mentioned, the U.S. does not rule out military intervention: as we noted in the introduction, CBS News reported in September that Trump is planning an invasion of Cuba to take place in 90 to 120 days—that is, around the turn of the year. This follows a year of preparations. The LA Times does not see a problem with these statements but treats them merely as the latest in a string of more or less crazy statements from the White House. The newspaper may have other things on its mind, which is understandable given the current situation. Had Cuba had the support of a rival superpower, such as the Soviet Union, however, the tone would have been quite different.

The LA Times further notes that market reforms are by no means a new phenomenon. Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro’s brother, has previously attempted to push through limited market-economy reforms but has been met with “bureaucratic obstacles.” From the newspaper’s reporting, we cannot determine whether it was simply that the party did not accept the reforms, or whether there were literally bureaucratic obstacles. It is reasonable to assume that there was resistance within the ruling class from segments of the bureaucratic faction of the bourgeoisie who themselves would stand to lose from the reforms. Regardless of the reason, the obstacles appear to be being removed this time.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER

Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, now states in official statements that the reforms are based on Vietnamese and Chinese “communist” economic models. The economic systems of these countries have even become so popular that bourgeois economists now view them as equivalent to those of the U.S. and the EU. A Cuban representative of the “Communist” Party is thus advocating for the market economies of revisionist states; he tries to keep up appearances by referring to Vietnamese mass production and Chinese financial institutions.

What does the “Communist Party” actually want to achieve with its “reforms”? Among other things, it wants to eliminate current restrictions that prevent individuals from owning multiple businesses, allow shareholdings in multiple companies, and create new legal forms of business entities, including jointly owned corporations. Similarly, the party proposes removing the cap on private enterprise size and allowing companies to employ more than 100 workers. In unabashedly capitalist fashion, such enterprises are now simply and unambiguously referred to as “private enterprises.”

Market-based solutions are also to be permitted in critical sectors in the “new” Cuba. These critical sectors include agriculture, which the population literally needs to survive. International trade is also to be facilitated. Through such trade, the country has its only chance to acquire products that cannot easily be manufactured domestically, such as cars, components for solar energy, and nuclear power plants. It’s no coincidence that Cubans still drive around in rusty turquoise ’50s Chevrolets with V8 engines that guzzle 4 liters per mile, since international trade is blocked by the U.S. Even the real estate sector is to be exposed to market forces – a sector that determines whether the population will have a roof over their heads or not. One might ask: what interests are driving this change?

THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN STATE-MONOPOLY CAPITALISM AND BUREAUCRATIC CAPITALISM

Let’s draw a comparison with Sweden. Sweden, as we know, is a monopolistic-capitalist and imperialist country, and the people are mainly divided into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Within the bourgeoisie, there are essentially two factions: those who represent private monopoly capital and those who represent state monopoly capital. A similar contradiction exists in all oppressed nations between bureaucratic capital, which is linked to the state apparatus, and the compradors, who are directly linked to foreign capital. This contradiction also exists in Cuba.

Under the new “reform package,” the Cuban state will also be able to purchase minority stakes in private companies—that is, act like any other market participant. This policy is the same as in any Western European or North American country.

Given this, it is not entirely unreasonable that there are Cuban officials who are happy to look toward the northeast. On the other side of the Atlantic, in “social-democratic” Sweden, for example, there is the 100 percent state-owned energy company Vattenfall, where the CEO is paid an astronomical 1,600,000 SEK before taxes each month in salary. The irony is that this is something such “left-wing” figures in Sweden love to talk about, even as they offer their unconditional and uncritical support to the Cuban state. It would be fascinating to see if there are Cuban officials who translate these pages and learn from Vattenfall how to distribute the people’s property.

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

So-called “foreign direct investment”—one of several forms of what Lenin called the export of capital, in which imperialists buy up natural resources, build production facilities, and exploit the local population, among other things—is to be permitted to an ever-greater extent in Cuba, according to the proposal. Before 1982, there were absolutely no opportunities for such foreign investment in Cuba. However, a “joint venture law” was passed that year, which required that foreign investments be jointly owned with the Cuban state. This law led to an increase in European and Canadian investments, though not American ones, since the U.S. did not permit such investments.

The difference between the 1982 law and the new proposal is that foreign direct investment could now take place entirely without state involvement—that is, not just in the form of partnerships where the exploitation of domestic resources can, at least in theory, be limited. In practice, this is a return to “old” Cuba, where the Yanks were allowed to own, for example, sugar plantations thanks to permits from willing officials, in order to produce cheap raw materials for the imperialists’ companies.

Everything we see in other bureaucratic-capitalist countries can, in practice, also happen in Cuba. Consequently, no “bribes” are needed for foreign compradors (locally hired corporate agents) to buy up natural resources, formerly state-owned enterprises, and infrastructure, as well as to price export products on the imperialist powers’ terms—including through demands from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in order to secure new loans. The small Cuban bourgeoisie’s control over natural resources and enterprises will likely be outcompeted and disappear to the benefit of companies such as Dole, Chiquita, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Monsanto, and energy companies. Admittedly, the Cuban state will still be able to control and grant or deny permits for direct investments in the future, but there are no guarantees that the greedy beaks of the compradors will be reined in.

CONCLUSION

On social media, the Communist Party of Cuba (Partido Comunista de Cuba, PCC) has stated that the reforms are “an expression of the logic of development” during our “historical period” and that they “in no way deviate from the socialist project.” The head of the “Ministry of Ideology” claimed that the reforms constitute a “domestic, creative, courageous, and revolutionary response” to the “economic war Cuba is facing.” What a joke! Given the actual content of the reform package, the PCC’s claims about revolution and socialism are nothing but a mockery.

However, it is not a given that the reform program will succeed. U.S. imperialism is proclaiming loud and clear that it is preparing an invasion, and most of the bureaucratic capitalists in Cuba are trembling with fear. To save their own skins, they are ready to implement reforms that would appease the Yanks, even if this is not popular among the people. At the end of the day, it is the masses who determine their own fate, and this reform package is not popular among the masses.

The Cuban people do not want to become slaves again to the masters on the other side of the Florida Straits. Instead, they are ready to defend themselves. All domestic forces that are ready to capitulate in the face of Yankee aggression are doomed to fall. For the Cuban people to be liberated, and for the Cuban nation to be formed, a definitive break with imperialism is required. The country cannot allow itself to remain merely a producer for all manner of foreign powers; it must develop independently and become self-sufficient. In this regard, bureaucratic capital becomes a bottleneck, since it profits only from keeping the country in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal state. Chairman Gonzalo teaches us that confiscating bureaucratic capital is crucial for paving the way for the democratic revolution and necessary for the transition to the socialist revolution. What is required in the war of liberation must therefore be proletarian leadership: a leadership that will never capitulate to save its own skin, nor settle for half-measures; it will loudly and clearly proclaim its intention to overthrow imperialism through people’s war.

 

Kontakta oss via Kommunisten@riseup.net!

 

Kommunisten@riseup.net! Kubas nya marknadsreformer

Kubas nya marknadsreformer

| Nyheter

USA-imperialismen står och bankar på det Kubanska folkets dörr. CBS News rapporterade redan i slutet av september att Trump planerar en invasion av Kuba som ska äga rum inom 90 till 120 dagar. I en eskalering av handelsembargot har Kuba under året påtvingats ytterligare sanktioner från USA, och detta har skapat en humanitär kris på ön. Kuba är beroende av import för många livsförnödenheter – till exempel importeras hela 80% av landets mat. Förutom mat ingår också dricksvatten, hälso- och sjukvårdsutrustning, medicin, preventivmedel med mera i detta embargo. Dessutom inleddes året med en energibelägring som beskrivs av till och med FN, imperialismens egna ”fredskämpar”, som en krigshandling.

Jänkarna har sagt att de inte ämnar stanna där. De har flertalet gånger högt och tydligt sagt att de ska fortsätta öka trycket på regimen tills den kapitulerar. Men vad betyder detta? Vilka förändringar är det jänkarna vill se?

För att besvara den fråga behöver vi göra en kort översikt av Kubas moderna historia.

DEN AVBRUTNA REVOLUTIONEN: KUBAS MODERNA HISTORIA

För att göra en lång historia kort ska vi försöka sammanfatta Kubas moderna historia. Kuba inledde det tjugonde århundradet genom att två år dessförinnan, år 1898, befria sig självt från den spanska kronans koloniala styre. Under det sista stridsåret fick de Kubanska befrielsekämparna ett betydande stöd från USA, vars kapitalism vid den tiden hade utvecklats till monopolkapitalism. De amerikanska kapitalisterna kunde påtvinga Kuba ett halvkolonialt förhållande genom att finansiera (och kontrollera) en handfull jordägare. Dessutom kunde jänkarna investera lite kapital i landet för att etablera sin finansiella kontroll vilket skapade en klick av borgare på ön som var direkt beroende av jänkarkapitalet. Denna klick utvecklades till kompradorerna – USA-imperialismens lokala förvaltare.

Under 1900-talets gång utvecklades huvudstaden Havanna till ett harem för jänkare som ville leva det dekadenta kälkborgarlivet. I Havanna fann du en stad byggd åt turister, fylld av droger, fattigdom och prostitution. Runt staden fanns ett relativt stort halvproletariat och urban småborgarklass; på landsbygden var flertalet bönder.

Under 1930-talet genomförde arbetarklassen och bönderna ett stort uppror i landet. De strejkade och demonstrerade. Till och med vapen lyftes mot öns härskare. Inom landets viktigase industri, bland sockerkvarnarna, växte en sovjetrörelse fram med revolutionära arbetarråd. Det hela slutade med att den amerikanskledda komprador-regeringen föll. Men inte långt efter det kunde armén genomföra en statskupp och etablera en klassisk militärdiktatur av latinamerikansk typ med Fulgencio Batista i spetsen. Allt regisserat från Washington.

Under 1950-talet hade småborgerskapet utvecklats till en av de mest talrika klasserna i landet då det var deras organisationer som var mest stridbara. Castros 26-juli-rörelse kom från just småborgerskapet. I dess program från 1956 hördes klassiskt borgerliga krav och fraser. Det var ”väglett av demokratins, nationalismens och den sociala rättvisans ideal”, en ”Jeffersonsk demokrati” (efter den amerikanske presidenten Jefferson, 1801-1809) och de deklarerade att ”demokrati kan inte innebära en regering av en ras, klass eller religion utan det måste vara en regering för hela folket”. Det vill säga: den Castro-ledda rörelsen kämpade inte för socialismen eller ny-demokrati utan för att ta över den amerikansk kontrollerade ekonomin och göra den kubansk; den kämpade för en demokrati som sa sig vara ovanför klasserna.

Med detta program tog Castro och en liten grupp till vapen mot Batistas regering i Siena Maestra-bergen, medan andra unga intellektuella och yrkesverksamma organiserade motstånd i städerna. Detta krig vann stöd från nästan alla andra klasser utom den lilla handfull människor som var direkt knutna till jordägarna och USA. I kampen var den avgörande styrkan småbönderna som förde en väpnad kamp mot jordägarna och armén. Batistas armé, som till stor del bestod av bönder, började snart att falla isär. Batistas regering föll i upplösning efter två års strider där endast några få hundratals beväpnade rebeller var involverade.

Under de sista månaderna av stridigheterna hade till och med den amerikanska regeringen dragit tillbaka en del av sitt stöd för Batistaregeringen, i tron att det var mer sannolikt att 26 juli-rörelsen skulle gå med på att nå en överenskommelse än att Batistaregeringen kunde överleva. Strax efter att ha tagit makten 1959 reste Castro till USA på en ”goodwill-turné” och förklarade i New York: ”Jag har klart och definitivt sagt att vi inte är kommunister… Portarna är öppna för privata investeringar som bidrar till Kubas utveckling.” Han förespråkade till och med ett massivt amerikanskt biståndsprogram för Latinamerika, ”för att undvika faran med kommunism.” Hans öppet antikommunistiska retorik för att blidka jänkarna hade sin grund i samma anledning som hans senare behövde ändra sig och anamma en ”kommunistisk” retorik för att blidka Sovjetunionen: han var förkroppsligandet av opportunism.

För att skapa en nytt Kuba krävdes det att expropriera sockerplantagerna som stod i motsättning till jänkarnas kapitalintressen. Dessa var pelarna i det ekonomiska och politiska systemet som ursprungligtvis gav upphov till upproret. Att utmana dem innebar att utmana hela det kolonialsystem som rådde på ön, och det gick inte heller att dra sig tillbaka då folket skulle med rätta se det som en kapitulation. Då passade det bra att en viss Nikita Chrusjtjov, som nyligen lett ett kapitalistiskt återinförande i Sovjetunionen, kom och knackade på dörren.

KUBA FÖRVANDLAS TILL EN HALVKOLONI ÅT SOVJETUNIONEN

Sovjetunionen hade efter den kapitalistiska restaureringen börjat styras av imperialismens lagar, dvs. att de styrdes av behovet av att monopolisera källor till råmaterial, exportera kapital för att utvinna supervinster, samt att konkurrera med imperialistiska rivaler om världsherravälde. De såg att genom att knyta Kuba till sin imperialistiska sfär skulle de kunna utvinna stora rikedomar ur Kuba. Landet blev alltså ett politiskt och militärt verktyg i det revisionistiska Sovjetunionens kamp mot sina amerikanska rivaler.

Som vilken entreprenör som helst gav sovjeterna de första lånen till Kuba till ett lågt pris. De första åren av ”bistånd” lånades ut räntefritt, och senare började de ta ut 2,5 % ränta. Deras faktiska vinst var dock mycket högre än så. I det ursprungliga avtalet skulle 80 % av Sovjetunionens kredit och pengar användas för att köpa sovjetiska produkter till starkt uppblåsta priser. Precis som i fallet med räntor, när Kubas beroende väl hade etablerats, höjde sovjeterna insatsen och krävde att all kredit skulle användas på sovjetiska produkter. Enligt en författare med tillgång till kubansk statistik tog Sovjetunionen 11 % till 53 % mer betalt för maskiner än priset på jämförbara maskiner i väst. Och för att göra detta rån ännu mer upprörande sålde de mycket av detta socker till ett ännu högre pris till Östeuropa, även om sovjeterna först betalade Kuba mer för sitt socker än världsmarknadspriset vid den tiden (vilket de givetvis snart slutade göra).

Detta var standardsovjetisk praxis över hela världen. Det var genom ojämlik handel som Sovjetunionen realiserar mervärdet som genereras av kapitalexport. I grunden var det litet mer än en bokföringsöverenskommelse om huruvida vinsten återvänder till Sovjetunionen i form av ränta eller i form av supervinster från försäljningar, när försäljningen är knuten till handelsavtal och kapitalexport.

Det var sockerplantagerna som den kubanska ekonomin dömdes till att producera och exportera under både artonhundra- och den första hälften av nittonhundra-talet. Under den spanska kronans kolonialtid administrerades det av spanska tjänstemän på ön, under jänkarnas dominans av jordägarna och kompradorerna i staden, och sedermera av statstjänstemän i Havanna under den Sovjetiska dominansen. Under Batista-tiden förbjöds bönder att odla på oanvända jordar då de istället skulle vara beroende av att arbeta på sockerplantagerna. Detsamma skedde under Castro. Folket samlades till att arbeta på sockerplantagerna; de tvingades arbeta längre dagar och fick med tiden mindre betalt.

Castro påstod att landet inte behövde utvecklade någon annan industri utan dömde som sagt folket till ett evigt plantagearbete. Istället hävdade han och hans kompanjoner att det sovjetiska biståndet och sockerköpen gjorde det möjligt för dem att köpa allt de behövde för att ”bygga upp socialismen och kommunismen samtidigt på Kuba”. Sovjetunionen lyckades köpa sig en nykoloni.

Castro hade inte som intresse att utveckla landet eller utveckla någon socialism. Istället valde han, att precis på samma sätt ön hade styrts under godsägar- och kompradorväldet under USA-imperialismens kontroll, skulle sockerindustrin styra det ekonomiska livet på ön.

KUBA STYRS AV IMPERIALISMENS LAGAR

Castro påstod, i ett försök att vilseledda massorna, att Kuba behövde för att nå kommunismen först utveckla produktivkrafterna för att producera ett överflöd. Därför menade han att landet behövde se till att planera att de kunde maximera landets profit genom att centrera ekonomin till sockerplantagern, och med vinsten ur denna industri utveckla sockerindustrin och importera mat, bilar, osv. Det var just denna argumentation Castro använde när arbetarnas löner sänktes och de blev tvingade till förlängda arbetsdagar.

Detta ekonomiska system som Castro beskrev bygger på samma principer som styr alla kapitalistiska länder, särskilt i form av statskapitalism: att priserna ska fastställas utifrån produktionskostnaden; att de fabriker och industrier som ger högst avkastning på sina investeringar ska vara de områden där expansionen är störst; att cheferna för dessa enheter ska avlönas utifrån sin sociala ställning och även företagens lönsamhet; att arbetarna ska avlönas utifrån lönsamheten hos de företag de arbetar för, och förlora sina jobb om produktionen skulle bli billigare utan dem; och dessutom att arbetarna ska avlönas strikt enligt sin produktivitet, mätt genom ackordslön eller utifrån om de uppfyller den produktionskvot som fastställts för deras arbeten – med andra ord, om de når normen.

Detta är verkligen kapitalismen i all sin prakt. Ingenstans framträder detta i sin fulaste form tydligare än när Castro sa under 1970-talet att han beklagade att det råder en så fruktansvärd bostadsbrist på Kuba, men att ”revolutionen inte har kunnat göra mycket” åt saken – samtidigt som han senare avslöjar att regeringen bygger 14 nya turisthotell och utökar andra.

EFTER SOVJETUNIONENS FALL

Den Kubanska staten stod kvar när den sovjetiska staten föll samman. Under 1990-talet stod landet inför en svår kris då ekonomin gjort sig beroende av handeln med Sovjetunionen. Landet har därefter behövt sälja sina varor på den internationella marknaden. För att markera det skifte för den kubanska ekonomin kan vi titta på exportens andel av BNP. Framtill år 1990 utgjorde exporten 30% av BNP. Under resterande 90-tal sjönk denna siffra mellan 10-15% för att under 2000- och 2010-talet röra sig runt 15-25%. Sedan dess har ett ytterligare ett skifte skett. Landet har öppnat för mer export och år 2022 utgjorde handeln 40% av landets totala BNP. Idag är det spanjorerna och kineserna som importerar mest från Kuba.

Då jänkarna åter vill ta tillbaka sin gamla sockerkoloni har de ökat sitt handelsembargo. USA:s handelsembargo mot Kuba, som har gällt sedan 1962, förbjuder de flesta handels- och finansiella transaktioner mellan de två länderna, med endast begränsade undantag för livsmedel och läkemedel. Embargot genomdrivs genom olika lagar och förordningar som gör det svårt för Kuba att bedriva internationell handel och få tillgång till finansmarknaderna. Det straffar även företag från andra länder som behöver betala böter eller begränsas på andra vis när de gör affärer i USA. Jänkarna har ökat detta embargo för att kontra kubanernas satsningar på exporten. Både Trump och Biden har sedan år 2017 infört ytterligare pålagor av sanktioner mot Kuba, år 2017, 2021 och 2026.

SAMMANFATTNING AV LÄGET

I Kuba har som sagt en byråkratisk fraktion inom borgarklassen styrt landet sedan revolutionen 1959. Genom att lägga beslag om statsapparaten har denna klass kunnat formera landet till att tjäna byråkraternas och i förlängning imperialismens intressen. De har fördjupat halvfeodalismens närvaro på ön och omvandlat landet till en sockerkoloni, vilket har försvagat tendensen till kapitalackumulation inom landet och därmed bevarat den halvfeodala basen landet runt. Idag ser vi dock tendenser till att det öppnas för ett skifte inom den härskande klassen.

KUBAS NYA REFORMPAKET

Den 18 juni, 2026, röstade Kubas nationalförsamling enhälligt igenom ett av de mest omfattande marknadsekonomiska reformpaketet sedan revolutionen. Större delen av de nya reformerna har ännu inte blivit till lag, men tendensen är otvetydig: Kuba öppnar upp sig mot omvärlden på ett sätt som transformerar landet från att ha en stark byråkratisk kontroll över ekonomin till att öppna upp för ett mer direkt utländskt ingripande. Den politiska makten rör sig från den byråkratiska fraktionen inom borgarklassen till de mer kompradora elementen. Resultatet av reformerna, om de antas till fullo, innebär nämligen att såväl exilkubaner som andra utlänningar kan göra affärer på Kuba, om byråkraterna där är med på noterna. Med andra ord kommer Kuba, när ”reformerna” blir till lag, inte vara så annorlunda än El Salvador, Panama, Ecuador och liknande länder där de kompradora fraktionerna styr landet.

Det är inte klart exakt vilka politiska faktorer som föranlett det senaste reformpaketet. Men det går inte att analysera bortom omvärldens utveckling. När USA sätter allt större press på härskarna i Havanna, som håller dess eget folk gisslan, genom att strypa dess import av livsnödvändigheter väljer delar av den byråkratiska fraktionen att byta sida för att rädda sitt eget skinn och undvika att konflikten utvecklas till en de facto invasion. Det är inte långsökt att anta att interna opportunistiska krafter slagit sig ihop med USA:s exilkubaner och deras favoritminister Marco Rubio. Nu får denne äntligen chans till revansch; lille Marco blockerar olja och andra livsnödvändiga förnödenheter såsom mediciner och barnmat att komma in i landet och stoltserar sig med att han är landets befriare. Han ställer alla möjliga sorters krav och uppmana befolkningen till uppror, precis som Trump gör i Iran. Likt Trump får han inte heller något riktigt gehör.

Till och med Los Angeles (LA) Times hänvisade den 19 juni till uttalanden från både Trump och Rubio, i vilka de båda öppet erkänner att de vill påtvinga Kuba USA-imperialistisk kontroll. USA utesluter som sagt inte ett militärt ingripande: som vi nämnde i introduktionen rapporterade CBS News i september att Trump planerar en invasion av Kuba som ska äga rum om mellan 90 och 120 dagar – dvs. runt årsskiftet. Detta efter ett år av förberedelser. LA Times ser inte problemet med dessa uttalande utan behandlar dem bara som flera i raden av mer eller mindre tokiga uttalanden från Vita Huset. Tidningen kanske har annat att tänka på, vilket är förståeligt i dagsläget. Hade Kuba haft stöd från en rivaliserande supermakt, som Sovjetunionen, hade det dock varit annat ljud i källan.

LA Times noterar vidare att marknadsreformerna ingalunda är något nytt. Raúl Castro, Fidel Castros bror, har tidigare försökt att få igenom begränsade marknadsekonomiska reformer men mötts av ”byråkratiska hinder”. Av tidningens rapportering kan vi inte utröna om det bara var så att partiet inte accepterade reformerna, eller om det bokstavligen fanns byråkratiska hinder. Det rimliga är att det fanns ett motstånd inom den härskande klassen från delar av den byråkratiska fraktionen av borgarklassen som själva skulle förlora på reformerna. Oavsett vilken anledning så verkar hindren undanröjas denna gång.

LIKA GILLAR LIKA

Kubas president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, menar nu i officiella uttalanden att reformerna baseras på vietnamesiska och kinesiska ”kommunistiska” ekonomiska modeller. Dessa länders ekonomiska system har till och med blivit så populära att borgerliga ekonomer numera ser dem som likvärdiga med USA och EU:s system. En Kubansk representant för det ”kommunistiska” partiet står alltså och pläderar för revisioniststaternas marknadsekonomier; han försöker behålla masken genom att hänvisa till vietnamesisk massproduktion och kinesiska finanshus.

Vad vill ”Kommunistpartiet” i praktiken med sina ”reformer”? Bland annat vill man eliminera rådande restriktioner som hindrar enskilda personer att äga flera företag, man vill tillåta aktieinnehav i flera bolag och man vill skapa nya rättsliga bolagsformer, inklusive samägda aktiebolag. På samma sätt föreslår partiet att eliminera gränsen för privat tillväxt och tillåta bolag att anställa fler än 100 arbetare. I oförblommerad kapitalistanda kallas sådana företag numera bara utan omsvep för ”privata företag”.

Marknadslösningarna ska även, i det ”nya” Kuba, få tillåtas i kritiska sektorer. Dessa kritiska sektorer inkluderar jordbruket, vilket befolkningen bokstavligen behöver för att överleva. Även internationell handel ska underlättas. Inom sådan handel har landet sin enda chans att byta till sig produkter man inte enkelt kan bygga på hemmaplan, till exempel bilar, komponenter till solenergi och kärnkraftverk. Det är inte för inte som Kubanerna fortfarande kör runt i rostigt turkosa 50-chevor med V8:or som drar 4 liter per mil då internationell handel blockeras av USA. Även fastighetsbranschen ska få utsättas för marknaden; denna bransch där det bestäms om befolkningen ska få tak över huvudet eller ej. Man kan fråga sig: vad finns det för intressen för att organisera denna förändring?

LIKHETEN MELLAN STATSMONOPOLKAPITALISMEN OCH BYRÅKRATKAPITALISMEN

Vi gör en liknelse med Sverige. Sverige är som vi vet ett monopolkapitalistiskt och imperialistiskt land, och folket är huvudsakligen indelat i två klasser: borgerskap och proletariat. Inom borgerskapet finns det huvudsakligen två fraktioner; de som företräder det privata monopolkapitalet och de som företräder det statliga monopolkapitalet. En liknande motsättning finns i alla förtryckta nationer mellan byråkratkapitalet, som är knutet till statsapparaten, och kompradorerna som är direkt knutna till det utländska kapitalet. Denna motsättning finns även i Kuba.

I det nya ”reformpaketet” ska den kubanska staten också kunna köpa minoritetsposter i privata bolag, det vill säga agera som vilken annan aktör som helst på marknaden. Denna politik är densamma som i vilket västeuropeiskt eller nordamerikansk land som helst.

I och med detta är det inte helt orimligt att det finns kubanska tjänstemän som gärna blickar åt nordost. På andra sidan Atlanten finns det i sosse-Sverige exempelvis det 100-procent statligt ägda energibolaget Vattenfall, där VD:n betalas astronomiska 1 600 000 kr före skatt ­varje månad i lön. Det roliga är att detta är något som dylika ”vänster”-profiler i Sverige gärna talar om samtidigt som man ger sitt ovillkorliga och okritiska stöd till den kubanska staten. Det hade varit spännande att se ifall det finns kubanska tjänstemän som översätter dessa sidor och lär sig från Vattenfall hur man kan fördela folkets egendom.

UTLÄNDSKA DIREKTINVESTERINGAR

Så kallade ”utländska direktinvesteringar” ­- en av flera former av det Lenin kallade för kapitalexport, där imperialisterna köper upp naturresurser, bygger produktionsanläggningar och exploaterar lokalbefolkningen med mera­ – ska börja tillåtas i allt större utsträckning i Kuba, enligt förslaget. Innan 1982 fanns det överhuvudtaget inga möjligheter för sådan utländska investeringar i Kuba. En ”joint venture law” antogs dock det året som innebar att utländska investeringar behövde vara samägda med den kubanska staten. Denna lag ledde till att europeiska och kanadensiska investeringar ökade, dock inte amerikanska, eftersom USA inte tillät sådana investeringar.

Skillnaden mellan 1982 och det nya förslaget är att utländska direktinvesteringar numera skulle kunna ske även helt utan statens inblandning, det vill säga inte bara i form av samarbeten där exploatering av inhemska resurser åtminstone i teorin kan begränsas. I praktiken är detta en återgång till ”gamla” Kuba där jänkarna tilläts äga exempelvis sockerplantager tack vare tillstånd från villiga tjänstemän, för att producera billiga råvaror till imperialisternas företag.

Allt vi ser i andra byråkratkapitalistiska länder kan i praktiken då ske även i Kuba. Det behövs därmed inga ”mutor” för utländska kompradorer (lokalt anställda företagsagenter) att köpa upp naturresurser, tidigare samhällsägda företag och infrastruktur samt prissätta exportprodukterna på imperialistmakternas villkor, inklusive via krav från Internationella Valutafonden (IMF) för att få nya lån. Den lilla kubanska borgarklassens kontroll över naturresurser och företag konkurreras sannolikt ut och försvinner till förmång för företag såsom Dole, Chiquita, McDonalds, Wendy’s, Monsanto och energibolag. Visserligen ska den kubanska staten även i framtiden kunna kontrollera och ge eller avslå tillstånd för direktinvesteringarna, men det finns inga garantier för att inte kompradorernas suktande näbbar kommer tämjas.

AVSLUTNING

I sociala medier har Kubas kommunistiska partis (Partido Comunista de Cuba, PCC) skrivit att reformerna är ”ett uttryck för utvecklingens logik” under vår ”historiska period” och att de ”på intet sätt avviker från det socialistiska projektet.” Chefen för det ”ideologiska ministeriet” påstod att reformerna utgör ett ”inhemskt, kreativt, modigt och revolutionärt svar” på det ”ekonomiska kriget som Kuba konfronteras med”. Vilken goja! Givet det faktiska innehållet i reformpaketet är PCC:s påståenden om revolution och socialism inget annat än ett hån.

Emellertid är det inte givet att reformprogrammet får utslag. USA-imperialismen proklamerar högt och tydligt att de förbereder en invasion och flertalet byråkratkapitalister på Kuba skakar i rädsla. För att rädda sina egna skinn är de redo att genomföra reformer som skulle göra jänkarna till lags – även om detta inte är något populärt bland folket. I slutet av dagen är det massorna som bestämmer sitt öde, och detta reformpaket är inte populärt bland massorna.

Det kubanska folket vill inte åter bli slavar åt herrarna på andra sidan Floridasundet. Istället är de redo att försvara sig. Alla de inhemska krafter som är redo att kapitulera inför jänkar-agression är dömda att falla. För att det kubanska folket ska kunna befrias, och för att den kubanska nationen ska kunna formeras, krävs det ett slutgiltigt brott med imperialismen. Man kan inte låta sig förbli enbart en producent åt allehanda utländska makter, det gäller att landet utvecklas självständigt och blir självförsörjande. I detta blir byråkratkapitalet en flaskhals eftersom att det endast tjänar på att bevara landet i ett halvkolonialt och halvfeodalt tillstånd. Ordförande Gonzalo lär oss att det är avgörande att konfiskera byråkratkapitalet för att öppna upp för den demokratiska revolutionen och nödvändigt för att övergå till den socialistiska revolutionen. Det som erfodras i befrielsekriget måste således vara det proletära ledarskapet: ett ledarskap som aldrig kommer kapitulera för att rädda sitt egna skinn, och inte heller nöja sig med att gå halvvägs; det kommer högt och tydligt utropa sin intention att störta imperialismen genom folkkrig.

Kontakta oss via Kommunisten@riseup.net!

 

 

 

Kommunisten@riseup.net!: Las nuevas reformas de mercado de Cuba

Las nuevas reformas de mercado de Cuba

|Noticias

El imperialismo estadounidense está llamando a la puerta del pueblo cubano. CBS News ya informó a finales de septiembre que Trump está planeando una invasión a Cuba que tendrá lugar en un plazo de 90 a 120 días. En una escalada del embargo comercial, este año se han impuesto nuevas sanciones estadounidenses a Cuba, lo que ha creado una crisis humanitaria en la isla. Cuba depende de las importaciones para muchas necesidades de la vida; por ejemplo, hasta el 80% de los alimentos del país se importan. Además de los alimentos, también se incluyen en este embargo agua potable, equipos sanitarios, medicamentos, anticonceptivos y más. Además, el año comenzó con un asedio energético calificado incluso por la ONU, los propios "luchadores por la paz" del imperialismo, como un acto de guerra.

Los Yankees han dicho que no tienen intención de quedarse allí. En repetidas ocasiones han dicho alto y claro que seguirán aumentando la presión sobre el régimen hasta que capitule. ¿Pero qué significa esto? ¿Qué cambios quieren ver los Yankees?

Para responder a esa pregunta, necesitamos hacer una breve reseña de la historia moderna de Cuba.

LA REVOLUCIÓN INTERRUMPIDA: LA HISTORIA MODERNA DE CUBA

Para abreviar la historia, intentemos resumir la historia moderna de Cuba. Cuba comenzó el siglo XX liberándose del dominio colonial de la corona española dos años antes, en 1898. Durante el último año de lucha, los luchadores por la liberación cubanos recibieron un apoyo significativo de los Estados Unidos, cuyo capitalismo se había convertido para entonces en un capitalismo monopolista. Los capitalistas estadounidenses pudieron imponer una relación semicolonial a Cuba financiando (y controlando) a un puñado de terratenientes. Además, los yanquis pudieron invertir algo de capital en el país para establecer su control financiero, lo que creó una camarilla de ciudadanos en la isla que dependían directamente del capital yanqui. Esta camarilla evolucionó hasta convertirse en los compradores: los administradores locales del imperialismo estadounidense.

A lo largo del siglo XX, la capital, La Habana, se convirtió en un burdel de los yanquis que querían vivir una vida decadente. En La Habana encontraste una ciudad construida para turistas, llena de drogas, pobreza y prostitución. Alrededor de la ciudad había una clase pequeñoburguesa urbana y semiproletariada relativamente grande; en el campo la mayoría eran agricultores.

Durante la década de 1930, la clase trabajadora y los agricultores llevaron a cabo un importante levantamiento en el país. Hicieron huelga y se manifestaron. Incluso se levantaron armas contra el gobernante de la isla. Dentro de la industria más importante del país, entre los ingenios azucareros, surgió un movimiento soviético con consejos obreros revolucionarios. Todo terminó con la caída del gobierno comprador liderado por Estados Unidos. Pero poco después, el ejército pudo dar un golpe de Estado y establecer una dictadura militar clásica de tipo latinoamericano con Fulgencio Batista a la cabeza. Todo dirigido desde Washington.

Durante la década de 1950, la pequeña burguesía se había convertido en una de las clases más numerosas del país, ya que eran sus organizaciones las más combativas. El movimiento 26 de Julio de Castro provino precisamente de la pequeña burguesía. En su programa de 1956 se escuchaban reivindicaciones y frases clásicamente burguesas. Se "guiaba por los ideales de democracia, nacionalismo y justicia social", una "democracia jeffersoniana" (en honor al presidente estadounidense Jefferson, 1801-1809) y declaraba que "la democracia no puede significar un gobierno de una raza, clase o religión, sino que debe ser un gobierno de todo el pueblo". Es decir: el movimiento liderado por Castro no luchó por el socialismo o la nueva democracia sino para apoderarse de la economía controlada por Estados Unidos y convertirla en cubana; luchó por una democracia que pretendía estar por encima de las clases.

Con este programa, Castro y un pequeño grupo se levantaron en armas contra el gobierno de Batista en las montañas de Siena Maestra, mientras otros jóvenes intelectuales y profesionales organizaban la resistencia en las ciudades. Esta guerra obtuvo el apoyo de casi todas las demás clases, excepto del pequeño puñado de personas directamente vinculadas a los terratenientes y a Estados Unidos. En la lucha, la fuerza decisiva fueron los pequeños campesinos que libraron una lucha armada contra los terratenientes y el ejército. El ejército de Batista, compuesto en gran parte por campesinos, pronto comenzó a desmoronarse. El gobierno de Batista se desmoronó después de dos años de combates que involucraron sólo a unos pocos cientos de rebeldes armados.

En los últimos meses de los combates, incluso el gobierno de Estados Unidos había retirado parte de su apoyo al gobierno de Batista, creyendo que era más probable que el Movimiento 26 de Julio aceptara un acuerdo que que el gobierno de Batista pudiera sobrevivir. Poco después de tomar el poder en 1959, Castro viajó a Estados Unidos en una "gira de buena voluntad" y declaró en Nueva York: "He dicho clara y definitivamente que no somos comunistas... Las puertas están abiertas a la inversión privada que contribuya al desarrollo de Cuba". Incluso abogó por un programa masivo de ayuda estadounidense para América Latina, "para evitar el peligro del comunismo". Su retórica abiertamente anticomunista para apaciguar a los yanquis se basó en la misma razón por la que más tarde tuvo que cambiar y adoptar una retórica "comunista" para apaciguar a la Unión Soviética: era la encarnación del oportunismo.

Para crear una nueva Cuba, era necesario expropiar las plantaciones de azúcar lo que se oponían a los intereses del capital yanqui. Estos fueron los pilares del sistema económico y político que originalmente dio origen a la rebelión. Desafiarlos significaba desafiar todo el sistema colonial que prevalecía en la isla, y tampoco había forma de dar marcha atrás ya que el pueblo, con razón, lo vería como una capitulación. Entonces fue apropiado que un tal Nikita Khrushchev, que recientemente había liderado una restauración capitalista en la Unión Soviética, llamara a la puerta.

CUBA SE CONVIERTE EN SEMICOLONIA DE LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA

Después de la restauración capitalista, la Unión Soviética había comenzado a ser gobernada por las leyes del imperialismo, es decir, impulsada por la necesidad de monopolizar las fuentes de materias primas, exportar capital para extraer súper ganancias y competir con rivales imperiales por la dominación mundial. Vieron que al unir a Cuba a su esfera imperial podrían extraer grandes riquezas de Cuba. El país se convirtió así en una herramienta política y militar en la lucha de la Unión Soviética revisionista contra sus rivales estadounidenses.

Como cualquier empresario, los soviéticos concedieron los primeros préstamos a Cuba a bajo precio. Los primeros años de "ayuda" se prestaron sin intereses, y posteriormente empezaron a cobrar un interés del 2,5%. Sin embargo, su beneficio real fue mucho mayor que eso. En el acuerdo original, el 80% del crédito y el dinero de la Unión Soviética se utilizaría para comprar productos soviéticos a precios muy inflados. Como en el caso de los intereses, una vez establecida la dependencia de Cuba, los soviéticos subieron la apuesta y exigieron que todo el crédito se utilizara en productos soviéticos. Según un autor con acceso a las estadísticas cubanas, la Unión Soviética cobraba entre un 11% y un 53% más por las máquinas que el precio de máquinas comparables en Occidente. Y para hacer este robo aún más escandaloso, vendieron gran parte de este azúcar a un precio aún más alto a Europa del Este, a pesar de que los soviéticos inicialmente pagaron a Cuba más por su azúcar que el precio del mercado mundial en ese momento (lo que por supuesto pronto dejaron de hacer).

Ésta era una práctica soviética estándar en todo el mundo. Fue a través del comercio desigual que la Unión Soviética obtiene el plusvalor generado por las exportaciones de capital. Básicamente, fue poco más que un acuerdo contable sobre si las ganancias regresan a la Unión Soviética en forma de intereses o en forma de súper ganancias de las ventas, cuando las ventas están vinculadas a acuerdos comerciales y exportaciones de capital.

Fueron las plantaciones de azúcar las que la economía cubana estaba condenada a producir y exportar tanto en el siglo XIX como en la primera mitad del XX. Durante el período colonial de la corona española, fue administrada por funcionarios españoles en la isla, durante el dominio yanqui de los terratenientes y compradores en la ciudad, y posteriormente por funcionarios del gobierno en La Habana durante el dominio soviético. Durante la era de Batista, a los campesinos se les prohibió cultivar en tierras no utilizadas, ya que dependerían del trabajo de las plantaciones de azúcar. Lo mismo sucedió bajo Castro. La gente se reunió para trabajar en las plantaciones de azúcar; se vieron obligados a trabajar jornadas más largas y con el tiempo se les pagó menos.

Castro afirmó que el país no necesitaba desarrollar ninguna otra industria pero, según dijo, condenó al pueblo a eternos trabajos en las plantaciones. En cambio, él y sus compañeros afirmaron que la ayuda soviética y las compras de azúcar les permitieron comprar todo lo que necesitaban para "construir el socialismo y el comunismo simultáneamente en Cuba". La Unión Soviética logró comprarse una nueva colonia.

Castro no tenía ningún interés en desarrollar el país ni desarrollar ningún socialismo. En cambio, optó por que exactamente de la misma manera que la isla había sido gobernada bajo el gobierno de los terratenientes y compradores bajo el control del imperialismo estadounidense, la industria azucarera gobernaría la vida económica de la isla.

CUBA SE GOBERNA POR LAS LEYES DEL IMPERIALISMO

Castro afirmó, en un intento de engañar a las masas, que para alcanzar el comunismo Cuba necesitaba primero desarrollar las fuerzas productivas para producir en abundancia. Por lo tanto, creía que el país necesitaba asegurarse de planificar que pudieran maximizar las ganancias del país centrando la economía en la plantación de azúcar, y con las ganancias de esta industria desarrollar la industria azucarera e importar alimentos, automóviles, etc. Fue precisamente este argumento que utilizó Castro cuando se redujeron los salarios de los trabajadores y se los obligó a trabajar más horas.

Este sistema económico descrito por Castro se basa en los mismos principios que gobiernan todos los países capitalistas, especialmente en la forma de capitalismo de estado: que los precios deben determinarse en función del costo de producción; que las fábricas e industrias que dan el mayor rendimiento a sus inversiones deberían ser las áreas donde la expansión sea mayor; que los directivos de estas unidades deberían ser remunerados en función de su posición social y también de la rentabilidad de las empresas; que a los trabajadores se les debería pagar en función de la rentabilidad de las empresas para las que trabajan, y perder sus puestos de trabajo si la producción fuera más barata sin ellos; y, además, que a los trabajadores se les debe pagar estrictamente de acuerdo con su productividad, medida a destajo o en función de si cumplen con la cuota de producción establecida para sus trabajos; en otras palabras, si cumplen con el estándar.

De hecho, esto es el capitalismo en todo su esplendor. En ninguna parte esto es más evidente en su forma más fea que cuando Castro dijo en la década de 1970 que lamentaba que hubiera una escasez de viviendas tan terrible en Cuba, pero que "la revolución no ha podido hacer mucho" al respecto, mientras luego revelaba que el gobierno está construyendo 14 nuevos hoteles turísticos y ampliando otros.

DESPUÉS DE LA CAÍDA DE LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA

El Estado cubano se mantuvo cuando el Estado soviético colapsó. Durante la década de 1990, el país enfrentó una grave crisis cuando la economía se volvió dependiente del comercio con la Unión Soviética. Posteriormente, el país tuvo que vender sus productos en el mercado internacional. Para marcar ese cambio en la economía cubana, podemos considerar las exportaciones como porcentaje del PIB. Hasta 1990, las exportaciones constituían el 30% del PIB. Durante el resto de la década de 1990, esta cifra cayó entre un 10% y un 15%, y en las décadas de 2000 y 2010 osciló entre un 15% y un 25%. Desde entonces se ha producido otro cambio. El país se ha abierto a más exportaciones y en 2022 el comercio representó el 40% del PIB total del país. Hoy son los españoles y los chinos quienes más importan de Cuba.

Como los yanquis quieren recuperar su antigua colonia azucarera, han aumentado su embargo comercial. El embargo comercial de Estados Unidos contra Cuba, vigente desde 1962, prohíbe la mayoría de las transacciones comerciales y financieras entre los dos países, con sólo excepciones limitadas para alimentos y medicinas. El embargo se aplica a través de varias leyes y regulaciones que dificultan que Cuba realice comercio internacional y acceda a los mercados financieros. También castiga a las empresas de otros países que tienen que pagar multas o que tienen restricciones para hacer negocios en los Estados Unidos. Los yanquis han aumentado este embargo para contrarrestar la inversión de los cubanos en exportaciones. Desde 2017, tanto Trump como Biden han introducido nuevas imposiciones de sanciones contra Cuba, en 2017, 2021 y 2026.

RESUMEN DE LA SITUACIÓN

En Cuba, como dijimos, una facción burocrática dentro de la burguesía ha gobernado el país desde la revolución de 1959. Al apoderarse del aparato estatal, esta clase ha podido moldear el país para servir a los intereses de los burócratas y, por extensión, al imperialismo. Han profundizado la presencia del semifeudalismo en la isla y han convertido el país en una colonia azucarera, debilitando la tendencia a la acumulación de capital dentro del país y preservando así la base semifeudal en todo el país. Hoy, sin embargo, vemos tendencias hacia la apertura a un cambio dentro de la clase dominante.

EL NUEVO PAQUETE DE REFORMAS DE CUBA

El 18 de junio de 2026, la Asamblea Nacional de Cuba votó por unanimidad uno de los paquetes de reformas de economía de mercado más completos desde la revolución. La mayoría de las nuevas reformas aún no se han convertido en ley, pero la tendencia es inconfundible: Cuba se está abriendo al mundo exterior de una manera que está transformando al país de tener un fuerte control burocrático sobre la economía a abrirse a una intervención extranjera más directa. El poder político pasa de la facción burocrática dentro de la burguesía a los elementos más compradores. El resultado de las reformas, si se adoptan en su totalidad, significa que los cubanos en el exilio, así como otros extranjeros, pueden hacer negocios en Cuba, si los burócratas de allí están de acuerdo. En otras palabras, Cuba, cuando las "reformas" se conviertan en ley, no será tan diferente de El Salvador, Panamá, Ecuador y países similares donde las facciones compradoras gobiernan el país.

No está claro exactamente qué factores políticos impulsaron el último paquete de reformas. Pero no es posible analizar más allá del desarrollo del mundo exterior. A medida que Estados Unidos ejerce una presión cada vez mayor sobre los gobernantes de La Habana, que mantienen a su propio pueblo como rehén, al cortar sus importaciones de artículos de primera necesidad, partes de la facción burocrática optan por cambiar de bando para salvar su propio pellejo y evitar que el conflicto se convierta en una invasión de facto. No es descabellado suponer que fuerzas oportunistas internas se han unido a los cubanos exiliados en Estados Unidos y a su ministro favorito, Marco Rubio. Ahora finalmente tiene la oportunidad de vengarse; El pequeño Marco bloquea la entrada al país de petróleo y otros artículos esenciales, como medicinas y alimentos para bebés, y se enorgullece de ser el libertador del país. Hace todo tipo de demandas y llama a la población a rebelarse, tal como lo está haciendo Trump en Irán. Al igual que Trump, tampoco se le escucha mucho.

Incluso el Los Angeles (LA) Times del 19 de junio se refirió a declaraciones tanto de Trump como de Rubio en las que ambos admiten abiertamente que quieren imponer el control imperial estadounidense sobre Cuba. Como dije, Estados Unidos no descarta una intervención militar: como mencionamos en la introducción, CBS News informó en septiembre que Trump está planeando una invasión a Cuba que se llevará a cabo en entre 90 y 120 días, es decir. alrededor del cambio de año. Esto después de un año de preparación. El LA Times no ve el problema de estas declaraciones, sino que simplemente las trata como una más más en una serie de declaraciones más o menos locas de la Casa Blanca. El periódico puede tener otras cosas en mente, lo cual es comprensible en este momento. Sin embargo, si Cuba hubiera tenido el apoyo de una superpotencia rival, como la Unión Soviética, la fuente habría escuchado un sonido diferente.

El LA Times señala además que las reformas del mercado no son en absoluto nuevas. Raúl Castro, hermano de Fidel Castro, ha intentado anteriormente impulsar reformas limitadas de economía de mercado, pero ha enfrentado "obstáculos burocráticos". A partir de la información del periódico no podemos determinar si fue simplemente que el partido no aceptó las reformas o si hubo literalmente obstáculos burocráticos. Lo que es razonable es que hubo resistencia dentro de la clase dominante por parte de partes de la facción burocrática de la burguesía que a su vez perderían con las reformas. Independientemente del motivo, los obstáculos parecen haberse eliminado esta vez.

A LOS IGUALES LE GUSTA IGUAL

El presidente de Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel, cree ahora segúndeclaraciones oficiales que las reformas se basan en los modelos económicos "comunistas" vietnamitas y chinos. Los sistemas económicos de estos países se han vuelto incluso tan populares que los economistas burgueses ahora los ven como equivalentes a los sistemas de Estados Unidos y la UE. Un representante cubano del partido "comunista" defiende así las economías de mercado de los estados revisionistas; Intenta mantener la máscara refiriéndose a la producción en masa vietnamita y a las casas financieras chinas.

¿Qué quiere en la práctica el "Partido Comunista" con sus "reformas"? Entre otras cosas, quieren eliminar las restricciones existentes que impiden a los individuos poseer varias empresas, quieren permitir la participación en varias empresas y quieren crear nuevas formas jurídicas de empresas, incluidas las sociedades anónimas. De manera similar, el partido propone eliminar el límite al crecimiento privado y permitir que las empresas contraten a más de 100 trabajadores. En un espíritu capitalista descarado, estas empresas ahora se denominan simplemente "empresas privadas".

SIMILARIDAD ENTRE EL CAPITALISMO MONOPOLICO DE ESTADO Y EL CAPITALISMO DE OFICINA

Hacemos una analogía con Suecia. Suecia, como sabemos, es un país capitalista monopolista o imperialista, y el pais está dividido principalmente en dos clases: la burguesía y el proletariado. Dentro de la burguesía hay principalmente dos facciones; los que representan el capital monopolista privado y los que representan el capital monopolista estatal. En todas las naciones oprimidas existe un antagonismo similar entre el capital burocrático, que está vinculado al aparato estatal, y los compradores, que están directamente vinculados al capital extranjero. Esta contradicción también se encuentra en Cuba.

En el nuevo "paquete de reformas", el Estado cubano también podrá comprar participaciones minoritarias en empresas privadas, es decir, actuar como cualquier otro actor en el mercado. Esta política es la misma que en cualquier país de Europa occidental o América del Norte.

Teniendo esto en cuenta, no es del todo descabellado que haya funcionarios cubanos a los que les guste mirar hacia el noreste. Al otro lado del Atlántico, en Sosse (Suecia), por ejemplo, se encuentra la empresa energética 100 por ciento estatal Vattenfall, donde el director general recibe un salario astronómico de 1.600.000 coronas suecas antes de impuestos cada mes. Lo curioso es que esto es algo de lo que esos perfiles "izquierdistas" en Suecia están felices de hablar mientras dan su apoyo incondicional y acrítico al Estado cubano. Hubiera sido interesante ver si hay funcionarios cubanos que traduzcan estas páginas y aprendan de Vattenfall cómo distribuir los bienes del pueblo.

INVERSIÓN EXTRANJERA DIRECTA

Según la propuesta, la llamada "inversión extranjera directa", una de varias formas de lo que Lenin llamó exportación de capital, donde los imperialistas compran recursos naturales, construyen instalaciones de producción y explotan a la población local y más, comenzará a permitirse en mayor medida en Cuba. Antes de 1982, no había ninguna oportunidad para este tipo de inversiones extranjeras en Cuba. Sin embargo, ese año se aprobó una "ley de empresas conjuntas" que significaba que las inversiones extranjeras debían ser de propiedad conjunta con el Estado cubano. Esta ley provocó un aumento de las inversiones europeas y canadienses, pero no de las estadounidenses, ya que Estados Unidos no permitía dichas inversiones.

La diferencia entre 1982 y la nueva propuesta es que ahora la inversión extranjera directa podría tener lugar incluso sin la participación del Estado, es decir, no sólo en forma de colaboraciones donde la explotación de los recursos internos puede, al menos en teoría, ser limitada. En la práctica, se trata de un regreso a la "vieja" Cuba, donde a los yanquis se les permitió poseer, por ejemplo, plantaciones de azúcar gracias al permiso de funcionarios dispuestos a producir materias primas baratas para las empresas de los imperialistas.

Todo lo que vemos en otros países capitalistas burocráticos, en la práctica, también puede suceder en Cuba. Por lo tanto, no hay necesidad de "sobornos" para los compradores extranjeros (agentes corporativos empleados localmente) para comprar recursos naturales, empresas e infraestructura que anteriormente eran de propiedad comunitaria y fijar el precio de los productos de exportación en los términos de las potencias imperialistas, incluso mediante demandas del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) para obtener nuevos préstamos. Es probable que el control de la pequeña burguesía cubana sobre los recursos naturales y las empresas sea superado y perdido en favor de empresas como Dole, Chiquita, McDonalds, Wendy's, Monsanto y compañías de energía. Es cierto que el Estado cubano también podrá controlar y conceder o denegar permisos para las inversiones directas en el futuro, pero no hay garantías de que los picos chupadores de los compradores no sean domesticados.

TERMINACIÓN

En las redes sociales, el Partido Comunista de Cuba (PCC) ha escrito que las reformas son "una expresión de la lógica del desarrollo" durante nuestro "período histórico" y que "de ninguna manera se desvían del proyecto socialista". El jefe del "Ministerio Ideológico" afirmó que las reformas constituyen una "respuesta indígena, creativa, valiente y revolucionaria" a la "guerra económica que enfrenta Cuba". ¡Qué delicia! Dado el contenido real del paquete de reformas, las afirmaciones de revolución y socialismo del PCC no son más que una burla.

Sin embargo, no es un hecho que el programa de reformas vaya a tener éxito. El imperialismo estadounidense proclama alto y claro que está preparando una invasión y la mayoría de los capitalistas burócratas en Cuba tiemblan de miedo. Para salvar su propio pellejo, están dispuestos a implementar reformas que convertirían a los yanquis en leyes, aunque esto no sea algo popular entre el pueblo. Al final del día, son las masas quienes deciden su destino, y este paquete de reformas no es popular entre las masas.


El pueblo cubano no quiere volver a ser esclavo de los amos del otro lado del Estrecho de Florida. En cambio, están dispuestos a defenderse. Todas las fuerzas nativas dispuestas a capitular ante la agresión yanqui están condenadas a caer. Para que el pueblo cubano sea liberado y para que se forme la nación cubana, se requiere una ruptura definitiva con el imperialismo. No puede permitirse seguir siendo sólo un productor para todo tipo de potencias extranjeras; es importante que el país se desarrolle de forma independiente y se vuelva autosuficiente. En esto, el capital burocrático se convierte en un cuello de botella porque sólo sirve para preservar al país en un estado semicolonial y semifeudal. El presidente Gonzalo nos enseña que confiscar el capital burocrático es crucial para abrir la revolución democrática y necesario para la transición a la revolución socialista. Por lo tanto, lo que se requiere en la guerra de liberación debe ser una dirección proletaria: una dirección que nunca capitulará para salvar su propio pellejo, ni se contentará con ir a medias; proclamará fuerte y claramente su intención de derrocar al imperialismo mediante la guerra popular.

 

Kontakta oss via Kommunisten@riseup.net!

 

MPP: Documents and notes on the global situation and tasks (USA: On the midterm elections — continued)

   

- Economy-politics-war-

The militarization of the economy and the imperialist war deepens the crises and unemployment in the imperialist countries, mainly in the United States, as it is the sole hegemonic superpower, where both factions of state monopoly capitalism resort to the militarization of the economy and the arms race for the enrichment of the largest monopolists of financial capital and as part of the preparations for the world imperialist war, which they will carry out when they are ready; The fusion of the immense power of the monopolies with the power of the State assures them of enormous military orders under advantageous conditions that provide them with considerable benefits.

Imperialism is sinking in the middle of a complex system of wars of all kinds. Imperialist wars of aggression trigger military expenditures and the profits of the arms industry dominated by financial capital. The weight of war and the militarization of the economy is unloaded by the imperialist States on the masses of the proletariat and the people of the imperialist countries themselves, in this case, the United States and, much more, on the peoples oppressed by their condition as semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries, where bureaucratic capitalism is developed at the service of imperialism.

The consequences for the working class of imperialist countries are the increase in taxes and debt. The decrease in the share of workers in the national income, the reduction of expenses for housing construction, public education and medical care, and the inflation and increase in the cost of living. Although this discharges part of the debt on the workers of the country itself, the majority is discharged on the oppressed peoples. We will touch on this problem more specifically later. As lawyers say, with documents in hand.

Greater parasitism and decomposition of imperialism, changes in production. Greater labor productivity in the metropolises and the displacement of productive activities with lower productivity to backward countries. Greater exploitation of workers, greater oppression and militarization and foreign war leads to greater reactionarization of the State, a reactionary bourgeois-democratic regime of rampant centralization of Power in the Executive, presidential absolutism, with increasing suppression of workers' rights and freedoms in the US. The crumbs that the imperialists throw to the working class of their countries are becoming less and less. The bosses of the bosses' unions, the union crust, complain that the pact with the bosses has been broken, that the so-called "welfare state" has been dismantled.

Elections are a means of domination for the Yankee bourgeoisie; they are neither an instrument of transformation for the proletariat and the people, nor a means to overthrow the power of the ruling class. Hence the correct approach: to use them solely for the purposes of agitation and propaganda, through an active boycott. It falls to the North American proletariat—through its Communist Party—to lead the socialist revolution, as part of and in the service of the global proletarian revolution.

Some fundamental issues

The defeat of representatives from one faction of the financial oligarchy by those from another faction of the same cannot be framed as a victory for the people, nor as an opening for "electoral rebellions against the billionaires"—that is, against the financial oligarchy, whether in its private-monopoly or state-monopoly form. The midterm elections have resulted in a shift in the balance of forces within the enemy’s camp (those at the top can no longer continue to govern as they once did).

The electoral defeat of the Republican Party (RP) does not represent a strategic shift in Yankee politics. It does, however, create more favorable conditions for the Democratic Party (DP) to engage in electoral manipulation—for instance, by leveraging its position to redraw electoral districts for representatives to the electoral colleges. Furthermore, it can block the appointment of "conservative" (Republican-aligned) judges to the Supreme Court, and so on. The struggle for control over the bureaucratic apparatus, the media, universities, and other institutions will intensify; the Democratic Party has secured a stronger foothold through its electoral victory.

Elections are presented and conducted as a defense of the obsolete, existing imperialist order and the evolution of North American society—a process that relies on the crudest and most brazen manipulation of the electorate. Without such manipulation, these states—which function as bourgeois dictatorships—could not continue to exist (Lenin, *The State and Revolution*).

It is necessary to expose the class character of the PD and the PR, to reveal the intentions they represent, and to show what they seek within a reactionary bourgeois democracy—a system characterized by the increasing suppression of benefits, rights, and freedoms.

Make use of the contradictions within the enemy’s own ranks.

Keep in mind the intertwining of struggles and wars—a concept discussed by Lenin—but this does not mean we should merge with others or trail behind them. We must not, under the pretext of fighting "ultrarightism" or fascism, end up tailing one of the reactionary factions; nor should we, in the name of opposing one superpower, end up tailing another superpower or imperialist power.

Apply the principle of "unite, differentiate, and lead."

Without a Party, an army, and a front composed of organized masses—all under the leadership of the Party—we cannot effectively reach out to encompass all the forces that could potentially be united. Absent these conditions, any other type of front will inevitably lead to trailing behind other forces, preventing the proletariat from directing the revolution through the Communist Party. A focus on "frentism" leads, sooner or later, to the dead end of electoralism and parliamentary cretinism. One cannot counter the necessity of a Communist Party to lead the revolution by proposing a so-called "Communist Movement," nor can one replace the leadership of the Communist Party with a mass organization—regardless of whether or not that organization is under the Party's guidance. The leadership of the revolution is exercised by the Communist Party; otherwise, there is no proletarian leadership of the revolution.

The Communist Party is distinct from—and opposed to—all other parties, even those that may seem closed or aligned. The notion of a "Communist Movement" is merely "frentism," and the idea that a mass organization could lead the proletarian movement is, in effect, a denial of the necessity for a Communist Party.

Using elections for agitation and propaganda remains entirely relevant. This includes carrying out an active boycott, following the principle: "before it begins, do everything to initiate it; once it has begun, do everything to develop it."

The problem of revolution in imperialist countries

The problem of revolution in imperialist countries is that, by plundering oppressed nations, the imperialists toss crumbs to the working class and the people they subjugate. Engels explained this in the 19th century, and Lenin analyzed and further developed the concept. In this way, a "crust" (or layer) is formed—from which trade union bureaucracies and "bourgeois workers' parties" (as Engels termed them, a concept later adopted by Lenin) emerge. That is the core problem.

However, one cannot claim that imperialism fails to ripen the conditions for revolution. In fact, as an imperialist power becomes mired in struggles against oppressed nations, the struggle within its own working class and among its own people intensifies. Yet, the situation is more complex because the ideological bombardment is systematic, and the imperialists attempt to mask the chains of oppression with those very crumbs. Regardless of the specific form it takes, the revolution will inevitably occur. Lenin himself argued that the revolution must integrate two movements: the national liberation movement—which, as Chairman Mao Zedong demonstrated exhaustively, is led by the proletariat—and the revolution within the imperialist countries themselves. These two must be combined; otherwise, the revolution cannot succeed. This was the position put forward by Chairman Gonzalo at the First Congress of the PCP (1988).

APPENDICES.

1) HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

THESE TRUTHS A History of the United States, JILL LEPORE, W. W. NORTON & COMPANY, Independent Publishers Since 1923, New York 

 

 

“On February 8, 1996, in an event broadcast live and over the Internet, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act in the reading room of the Library of Congress; he signed on paper and he also signed online, at a computer terminal. If little noticed at the time, Clinton’s approval of this startling piece of legislation would prove a lasting and terrible legacy of his presidency: it deregulated the communications industry, lifting virtually all of its New Deal antimonopoly provisions, allowing for the subsequent consolidation of media companies and prohibiting regulation of the Internet with catastrophic consequences.”

Sixteen

AMERICA, DISRUPTED

(…)

Between the attacks on September 11, 2001, and the election of Donald Trump fifteen years later, on November 9, 2016, the United States lost its way in a cloud of smoke. The party system crashed, the press crumbled, and all three branches of government imploded. There was real fear

that the American political process was being run by Russians, as if, somehow, the Soviets hadwon the Cold War after all. To observers who included the authors of books like How Democracy Ends, Why Liberalism Failed, How the Right Lost Its Mind, and How Democracies Die, it seemed, as Trump took office, as if the nation might break out in a civil war, as if the American experiment had failed, as if democracy itself were in danger of dying.

I.

IT BEGAN, in the year 1999, with a panic. Computer programmers predicted that at one second after midnight on January 1, 2000, all the world’s computers, unable to accommodate a year that did not begin with “19,” would crash. Even before the twenty-first century began, even before no small number of political dystopians forecast a thousand-year clash of civilizations or the imminent death of democracy, Americans were subjected to breathless warnings of millennial doom, a ticking clock catastrophe, not the global annihilation timed by the atomic age’s

Doomsday Clock but a disaster, a “Y2K bug,” embedded into the programs written to run on the microprocessor tucked into the motherboard of the hulking computer perched on every desktop.

After much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, this bug was quietly and entirely fixed.

The end of the world averted, digital prophets next undertook to predict the exact date of the arrival of an Aquarian age of peace, unity, and harmony, ushered in by, of all things, the Internet.

In the spring of 2000, Wired, the slick, punk, Day-Glo magazine of the dot-com era, announced that the Internet had, in fact, already healed a divided America: “We are, as a nation, better educated, more tolerant, and more connected because of—not in spite of—the convergence of the Internet and public life. Partisanship, religion, geography, race, gender, and

other traditional political divisions are giving way to a new standard—wiredness—as an organizing principle for political and social attitudes.”39 Of all the wide-eyed technological boosterism in American history, from the telegraph to the radio, few pronouncements rose to such dizzying rhetorical heights.

(.…)

(...)But, beginning in 2001, with the war on terror, the United States undermined and even abdicated the very rules it had helped to establish, including prohibitions on torture and wars of aggression.40 By 2016, a “by any means necessary” disregard for restraints on conduct had come to characterize American domestic politics as well. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato,” Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Iowa, “knock the crap out of them, would you?”41 Countless factors contributed to these changes. But the crisis of American moral authority that began with the war on terror at the start of the twenty-

first century cannot be understood outside of the rise of the Internet, which is everything a rule-based order is not: lawless, unregulated, and unaccountable.

(…)

On February 8, 1996, in an event broadcast live and over the Internet,

Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act in the reading room of the Library of Congress; he signed on paper and he also signed online, at a computer terminal. If little noticed at the time, Clinton’s approval of this startling piece of legislation would prove a lasting and terrible legacy of his presidency: it deregulated the communications industry, lifting virtually all of its New Deal antimonopoly provisions, allowing for the subsequent consolidation of media companies and prohibiting regulation of the Internet with catastrophic consequences.

Nevertheless, that the U.S. government would even presume to legislate the Internet—even if only to promise not to regulate it—alarmed the Internet libertarians. On the day Clinton signed the bill, Barlow, ex-hippie become the darling of world bankers and billionaires, watching from

the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, wrote a Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. . . .Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders.

He posted this statement on the web, where it became one of the very first posts to spread, as was said, like a virus, an infection.

Cyberutopians who had no use for government ignored the altogether inconvenient fact that of course not only the Internet itself but also nearly all the tools used to navigate it, along with the elemental inventions of the digital age, had been built or subsidized by taxpayer-funded, government-sponsored research. The iPhone, taking only one example, depended on the unquestionable and extraordinary ingenuity of Apple, but it also depended on U.S. government–funded research that had earlier resulted in several key technological developments, including GPS, multi-touch screens, LCD displays, lithium-ion batteries, and cellular networks. Nevertheless, Barlow and his followers believed that the Internet existed entirely outside of government, as if it had sprung up, mirabile dictu, out of nowhere, before and outside of civil society and the rule of law, in the borderless psychedelic fantasy world of cyberspace. “I ask you of the past to leave us alone,” Barlow pleaded. But if the futurists were uninterested in the past,

they seemed also strangely incautious about the future. With rare exception, early Internet boosters, who fought for deregulation and antitrust measures even as they benefited from the munificence of the federal government, evidenced little concern about the possible consequences of those measures on income inequality and political division in the United States and around the world.

The Internet, a bottomless sea of information and ideas, had profound effects on the diffusion of knowledge, and especially on its speed and reach, both of which were accelerated bysmartphones. If not so significant to human history as the taming of fire, it was at least as significant as the invention of the printing press. It accelerated scholarship, science, medicine, and education; it aided commerce and business. But in its first two decades, its unintended economic and political consequences were often dire. Stability, in American politics, had depended not on the wealth of the few but on the comfort of the many, not on affluence but on

security, and a commitment to the notion of a commonwealth. The Internet did not destroy the American middle class, but it did play a role in its decline. It fueled economic growth and generated vast fortunes for a tiny clutch of people at a time when the poor were becoming poorer and the middle class disappearing. It turned out that the antimonopoly regulations of the industrial era, far from being obsolete, were sorely needed in the information age. And the vaunted promise of Internet connection, the gauzy fantasy of libertarians and anarchists who imagined a world without government, produced nothing so much as a world disconnected and

distraught.

Silicon Valley, as it grew, earned a reputation as a liberal enclave, but it also drew a younger generation of libertarians, who had come not from the counterculture but from the New Right. Peter Thiel, born in Germany in 1967, had gone to Stanford, and then to Stanford Law School, where in 1987 he had founded the Stanford Review with funding from Irving Kristol. It aimed to counter campus multiculturalism, feminism, and political correctness, whose rise at Stanford Thiel had lamented in The Diversity Myth, a 1990s update and dilution of God and Man at Yale.

George Gilder and Robert Bork were among Thiel’s heroes. (Bork’s writings on the error of antitrust laws informed much Silicon Valley libertarianism.) After a brief career as a lawyer and a stock trader, Thiel had returned to California in 1996, just in time for the dot-com boom, which followed the lifting of restrictions on commercial traffic on the Internet. Ten thousand websites were launched every day, poppies in a field. In 1996, Bob Dole, an unlikely but bold pioneer, became the first presidential candidate to have a website. Amazon was founded in 1994, Yahoo! in 1995, Google in 1998. In 1998, Thiel co founded PayPal, hoping that it would free the citizens of the world from government-managed currency. “PayPal will give citizens worldwide more direct control over their currencies than they ever had before,” he promised. The Silicon Valley entrepreneur—almost always a man—became the unrivaled hero of the Second Gilded Age. He was a rescued man, the male breadwinner defended by George Gilder in the 1970s against the forces of feminism, saved, and newly seen as saving the nation itself. Multibillion-dollar Internet deals were made every day. In four years, the value of dot-coms, many of which had not earned a profit, rose by as much as 3,000 percent. By 1999, Bill Gates, at forty-three, had become the richest man in the world, and Microsoft the first corporation in history valued at more than half a trillion dollars.

(…)

“The Internet is the most democratizing innovation we’ve ever seen,” Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s campaign manager said in 2004, “more so even than the printing press.” At the time, many journalists agreed. Tom Brokaw talked about the “democratization of news,” and conservative journalists, in particular, celebrated the shattering

of the “power of elites” to determine what is news and what is not.

Compared to newspapers and broadcast television news, the information available on the Internet was breathtakingly vast and thrilling; it was also uneven, unreliable, and, except in certain cases, unrestrained by standards of reporting, editing, and fact-checking. The Internet didn’t leave seekers of news “free.” It left them bruatally constrained. It accelerated the

transmission of information, but the selection of that information—the engine that searched for it —was controlled by the biggest unregulated monopoly in the history of American business.Google went public in 2004. By 2016, it controlled nearly 90 percent of the market.

The Internet transformed the public sphere, blurring the line between what political scientists had for decades called the “political elite” and the “mass public,” but it did not democratize politics. Instead, the Internet hastened political changes that were already under way. A model of citizenship that involved debate and deliberation had long since yielded to a model of citizenship that involved consumption and persuasion. With the Internet, that model yielded to a model of citizenship driven by the hyperindividualism of blogging, posting, and tweeting, artifacts of a

new culture of narcissism, and by the hyperaggregation of the analysis of data, tools of a new authoritarianism. Data collected online allowed websites and search engines and eventually social media companies to profile “users” and—acting as companies selling products rather than

as news organizations concerned with the public interest—to feed them only the news and views with which they agreed, and then to radicalize them. Public opinion polling by telephone was replaced by the collection and analysis of data. Social media, beginning with Facebook, moving

fast and breaking things, exacerbated the political isolation of ordinary Americans while strengthening polarization on both the left and the right, automating identity politics, and contributing, at the same time, to a distant, vague, and impotent model of political engagement. In a wireless world, the mystic chords of memory, the ties to timeless truths that held the nation together, faded to ethereal invisibility.

2)     Trump urges public to trust AI industry self-regulation

Concern in Washington reaches fever pitch after autonomous AI agents polled government websites, but the White House has focused on the technology's potential. September 29, 2026

 After weeks of Washington being gripped by a wave of fear about artificial intelligence gone awry, the Trump administration on Tuesday sought to reassure a skeptical public that it can embrace the technology — and trust the industry to police itself. 

By Ian Duncan and Cat Zakrzewski

Standing with the world’s richest and most powerful tech executives Tuesday outside the West Wing, President Donald Trump said that he and they had signed a voluntary accord intended to ensure the industry develops AI safely.

Trump described the agreement as “morally binding.” The text suggests that codifying its terms may make sense “over time.”

The agreement capped a day in which Trump sought to reinforce his pitch that AI is an engine of prosperity that should not be restrained by government.

“In order to build a positive future for the American people and the world, we believe every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with customers and the public,” the agreement says.

Under the accord, the companies agreed to develop internal controls to prevent AI systems from spinning out of control.

“I’m seeing tremendous self-policing,” Trump said, surrounded by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The accord marks the most significant action the White House has taken to date to respond to growing concerns about AI risks, as even some of the industry’s top leaders warn that companies should slow down development.

The commitments reflect many of the measures that labs building advanced AI systems had already adopted, and the accord falls far short of the government intervention that some technologists have warned is necessary as AI rapidly advances.

The announcement of the accord followed what Trump called a “very productive” and “extremely friendly” lunch at the White House with House Speaker Mike Johnson and tech executives, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

Trump also sought to portray AI as a technology that can bring convenience to Americans. Before lunch, he launched America.gov, a government chatbot for researching public services, as part of a day-long event featuring members of his Cabinet and tech executives.

Trump also signed an order that will rename AI as “superintelligence” in government documents, as he attempts to rebrand a technology that has sparked deep public anxiety, resisting calls for the government to craft guardrails.

The day’s focus on AI’s promise contrasts with growing questions about the technology’s trajectory. AI firms say their latest systems have become increasingly powerful, showing signs of being able to design their own more-potent successors. But companies have struggled to keep control of the technology, as rogue AI agents have hacked into company and government systems, and a roster of top industry figures have warned that the end result could be catastrophic for humanity.

Last week, it was disclosed that the federal government itself had been a victim, with a handful of websites probed by AI agents deployed by ChatGPT maker OpenAI. (The Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)

Yet, even as the public’s concerns have grown and Democrats in Congress have pressed for regulation, Trump has largely dismissed the risk, calling it a “hoax.” On Tuesday, he accused the Democrats of stifling growth and technological progress because that could benefit Republicans.

The events on Tuesday propel a different narrative than the warnings issued by company CEOs in recent weeks. AI’s many boosters expect the technology will invigorate the economy, push the boundaries of science and help cure diseases. But that message has found only limited traction with a public worried about job losses and rogue bots sowing chaos online.

“We do not surrender to fears about what technologies will do to us,” he said Tuesday. “We decide that those technologies will do for us some very, very incredible things.”

Democrats in Congress said the White House’s response failed to meet the moment. Sen Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, contrasted the CEOs’ warnings with the president’s response: renaming AI.

“But changing what we call artificial intelligence does nothing to address the very real risks that come with increasingly powerful AI systems,” Warner said.

 

A ‘historic’ gathering

As dozens of administration officials and tech executives gathered for lunch Tuesday in the East Room, there was little public sign of the divisions within the tech industry and the Trump administration over the future of AI.

Executives sitting around the table have expressed wildly divergent views about the perils of AI and the government’s role in responding to its potential pitfalls. Trump sat between Elon Musk, who supported calls to slow down AI development last month, and Huang, who has resisted calls for any coordinated slowdown, saying it is up to individual companies to ensure that their products are safe. Amodei, the head of Anthropic who led the calls to pace development of advanced AI systems, joined the lunch after having his first one-on-one dinner Sunday with Trump.

After the event, a reporter asked all the executives if they agreed that no government guardrails are necessary and that the industry can self-police.

“I can tell you the answer is yes,” Trump said, before any of the CEOs spoke. He then asked Huang to speak.