The Revolution Betrayed?
It seems that Marx got it a tad wrong when he saw the inexorable victory of communism over the self-destruction of capitalism. It seems, however, that Marxism itself contained the seeds of its own destruction and has served as part of a dialectical process – for capitalism. This is because Marxism sprang from the same zeitgeist as capitalism: that of the 19th Century Manchester School of Economics. In fact, Marx conceded something of the type when he stated that he supported Free Trade as part of a dialectical process that would internationalize the productive processes and the proletariat. As history has shown, including recent history and that which is continuing to unfold before our eyes, there has been a dialectical process at work, but the result has not been that of socialism as a transitional phase towards communism, but rather as a transitional phase towards capitalist globalization, with the reanimation of the corpse of 19th Century English economics as the global economic model.
As H G Wells observed when touring the young Soviet state at the time that Washington Vanderlip was over their getting a Far Eastern concession on behalf of a consortium of US big business:
Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.
From this dialectical viewpoint, Marxian revolution served to break down traditional states, based on religion, aristocracy, and a peasant economy; just as the Soros “color revolutions” serve the same purpose in our own times. Socialist revolutions seem to have been a means of radically and even violently imposing an industrial economic structure upon societies that are viewed as anachronistic by international capitalism.
Most of the former communist states have succumbed to international capitalism, with China serving as a model of what international capitalism would like to achieve on a world scale: centralized economics backed by draconian laws, police and guns; a definition that the Left has historically and dogmatically applied to define “fascism.”
As I have sought to show, even brave little Vietnam, having fought for sovereignty – whether one calls it “communism” or “nationalism” is not crucial – for literally centuries against colonial powers, including the China, France and the USA – has now apparently succumbed to international capital, and is as much part of the world economic system, and its foundation in usury, as any Western state. As I have shown in that article, Vietnam has opened its economy up to world capitalism, and has embarked also on a course of debt-finance to the international banking system. This article poses the question as to whether Cuba is about to embark on the same course, and what the present strategy of international capitalism is for Cuba.
Cuba on the Capitalist Path?
It now seems that with a string of former “socialist’ states succumbing to the “market economy” one of the last remnants of the socialist dream – Cuba – is to go the same way. It seems plausible that the recent interview by Castro with Atlantic Monthly journalist Jeffrey Goldberg is a tentative move toward Cuba’s expression of intent to dismantle its sovereign economy, and to become a client state of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and transnational corporations.
It is of interest that the ostensible reason that Castro requested an interview with Goldberg was over the matter of Israel and the Cuban statesman’s joining the chorus of Western world leaders, Zionists and their allies to castigate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust denial.” It is surely reasonable to suppose that Castro thought the best way to ingratiate himself to the USA in particular was to say something that would be pleasing to the Zionists and their American underlings. Likewise, to offer what amounts to an apology for his actions regarding the Cuban missile crisis amounts to knee-bending penitence before the altar of the Yankee Dollar. Castro could surely have indicated his intention for economic reform and for entering the world economic system like Vietnam has done, without such a dramatic act of groveling to Zion.
An article by Al Kamen in principal Establishment mouthpiece, The Washington Post, states that Castro’s comments to Goldberg that the socialist economic model “doesn’t even work for us anymore” in reaction to a question about the old policy of spreading the socialist revolution throughout Latin America, comes at a time when his brother Raul is trying to push through reforms in the face of opposition with the Communist Party. 
Kamen cites other sources as stating that what Raul is looking at is the China model. Significantly Kamen describes the China model succinctly as being: “Rampant capitalism in the economy, tight communist control of the government.” That is precisely the type of regime beloved by Rockefeller, et al; precisely the type of regime that I believe has always been intended as the end product of the capitalist dialectic.
Goldberg brought with him as his adviser to the interviewer his friend Julia Sweig, “a leading Latin American scholar” at the Establishment think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The background of Ms Sweig is of interest. She is “Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies” at the CFR. The Council’s policy of moving towards Cuba might be compared to the long-term, gradual policy the CFR pursued for the recognition of Mao’s China in the face of public opposition. The recognition of China was also preceded by apparently minor events, such as the so-called “Ping Pong” diplomacy and gradually increasing cultural exchanges. Sweig wrote a CFR study on Cuba, drawing from Cuban archives including the personal archives of Castro, which seems to have been intended to throw a positive light on the revolution from a globalist Establishmentarian perspective, after years of declaring Cuba to be a world pariah. It seems that now is the time for Cuba to come into the “world community” from the Cold, by mutual consent.
David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies
As one should expect, groundwork for a change in Cuba is being fostered by Rockefeller interests in a manner typical of the way the plutocrats work above and beyond the public posturing of politicians on the world stage. Despite the decades’ long economic sanctions on Cuba by US administrations for e.g., University of Havana’s Center for the Study of the Cuban Economy works in partnership with a Rockefeller body, the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) at Harvard, studying ways by which the Cuban economy can be restructured for integration into the world economy. A joint 2005 study was published by the Rockefeller Center and distributed by Harvard University Press. Entitled The Cuban Economy at the Start of the Twenty-First Century, the Ford Foundation has assisted in the publication of a Spanish edition. Castro should have shut the whole business down from the start for the same reasons that some states have shut down the Soros subversive networks.
There are numerous ongoing programs initiated by the Rockefeller Centre under a special “Cuban Studies Program” which, as is the practice of the globalist elite, proceeds ahead regardless of petty politics.